"MADE  IN 
GERMANY"/ 


FRANKLIN  M. 
v  SPRAGUE  / 
\     A.M.     / 


h 


b 


<y 


"MADE  IN  GERMANY" 


"MADE  IN  GERMANY" 


BT 

FRANKLIN  M.  SPRAGUE,  A.M. 

AUTHOR  OP   "SOCIALISM  FROM  GENESIS  TO  REVELATION," 
AND   "THE  LAWS   OF  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION;   A  CRI- 
TIQUE  ON  KIDD'S  SOCIAL  EVOLUTION" 


WITH  AN   INTRODUCTION  BY 

THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 


%'...-■',•      • 


THE  PILGRIM  PRESS 

BOSTON  NEW  YORK  CHICAGO 


Copyright  1915 
By  FRANKLIN  M.  SPRAGUE 


THE   PILGRIM   PRESS 
BOSTON 


• 


The  Kaiser  had  the  moral  courage  to  assume  the  respon- 
sibility of  beginning  the  conflict. — "The  Truth  About 
Germany/'  p.  29  * 

Germany  should  crush  England,  break  up  Russia  and  re- 
duce France  to  vassalage. — Professor  Wilhelm  Oswald,  p. 
44. 

War  is  in  itself  a  good  thing. — Bernhardt,  p.  43. 

The  Germans  must,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  inter- 
est of  other  peoples,  fight  their  way  to  predominance  and 
force  upon  humanity  German  Culture  and  Spirit. — "Ger- 
many in  the  Next  War,"  p.  99. 

It  is  the  grossest  immorality  that  nations  should  respect 
the  possessions  of  other  nations. — Professor  Hugo  Mun- 
sterberg,  p.  171. 

This  step  (beginning  the  war)  was  taken  on  his  majesty's 
own  initiative. — German  Under  Secretary  of  State,  p.  7. 

Our  troops  have  occupied  Luxemburg,  and  are  per- 
haps even  now  on  Belgian  soil.  This  act  is  contrary  to 
the  rights  of  nations. — Chancellor  Bethmann  Hollweg, 
p.  8. 

The  treaty  guaranteeing  Belgian  neutrality  is  only  "a 
Scrap  of  Paper." — The  German  Chancellor,  p.  10. 

Might  makes  right. — TreitschJce,  p.  84. 

Who  opposes  me  I  will  crush  to  pieces. — The  Kaiser, 
p.  45. 

The  Prussian  kings  have  given  their  country  a  great 
doctrine,  the  doctrine  of  militarism. — Br.  Karl  Lamprecht, 
p.  53. 

Take  no  prisoners.  No  quarter  shall  be  given. — The 
Kaiser,  p.  57. 

*A11  page  references  are  to  this  volume  ;  "  Made  in  Germany." 

[v] 

331114 


I  am  Jehovah's  sword.  Woe  and  death  to  those  who 
resist  my  will. — The  Kaiser,  p.  58. 

We  are  and  must  be  barbarians.  ...  I  hope  in  this 
war  we  have  merited  the  title  of  barbarians. — Major- 
General  von  Disfurth,  p.  72. 

It  was  with  my  consent  that  the  General  had  the  whole 
place  burned  and  about  one  hundred  shot.  (The  real  num- 
ber was  between  two  and  three  hundred.) — General  von 
Buelow,  p.  73. 

I  demand  absolute  blind  obedience. — The  Kaiser,  p.  83. 

It  is  militarism  that  has  permitted  us  to  do  great  things. 
Let  us  keep  our  militarism. — Professor  Niessen,  Privy 
Councillor,  p.  84. 

War  is  the  greatest  factor  in  the  furtherance  of  cul- 
ture.— "Germany  and  the  Next  War,"  p.  158. 

The  whole  realm  of  human  knowledge  has  been  con- 
centrated in  the  German  brain. — Bernhardi,  p.  160. 

The  state  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  morality  of  its  own 
action.     .     .     .     It  is  above  morality. — Treitschke,  p.  169. 

Ye  have  heard  men  say  Blessed  are  the  peace  makers,  but 
I  say  unto  you,  Blessed  are  the  war  makers,  for  they  shall 
be  called,  if  not  the  children  of  Jahve,  the  children  of  Odin, 
who  is  greater  than  Jahvej — Nietzschke,  p.  170. 

The  Christian  law  of  love  applies  only  to  individuals  of 
the  same  state. — Bernhardi,  p.  171. 

I  believe  .  .  .  that  the  proclamation  of  the  law  on 
Mount  Sinai  must  not  be  considered  as  inspired  of  God. — 
The  Kaiser,  p.  174. 

To  us  is  given  faith,  hope  and  hatred,  but  hatred  is  the 
greatest  among  them. — Dr.  Fuchs,  German  Journalist  and 
retired  Army  Officer,  p.  177. 

[vi] 


INTRODUCTION  BY 
THEODORE  ROOSEVELT 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  me  to  write  these  few  lines 
by  way  of  preface  to  Mr.  Sprague 's  book.  I 
wish  to  call  especial  attention  to  what  the  book 
says  about  the  duty  of  the  United  States,  and 
the  lamentable  and  dreadful  failure  of  the 
United  States  to  perform  its  duty,  in  connection 
with  this  world  war.  I  rejoice  as  an  American 
that  an  American  clergyman  should  speak  as 
Mr.  Sprague  does  at  a  time  when  so  many  of 
those  in  America  who  claim  to  be  the  leaders 
of  religious  and  philanthropic  thought  have 
occupied  a  position  not  merely  futile  but  funda- 
mentally immoral.  For  this  reason  I  am  par- 
ticularly glad  to  call  attention  to  Chapter  IV. 
Mr.  Sprague  puts  the  case  in  a  nutshell  when 
he  says  that  "nothing  is  politically  right  that 
is  morally  wrong"  and  that,  as  Kant  says, 
11  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  moral  neutral- 
ity. ' '  The  case  of  Belgium,  which  he  sets  forth 
at  length,  is  one  that  demanded  action  by  the 
United  States,  if  America  was  to  be  true  to  its 
obligations  under  international  law,  and,  above 
all,  if  it  was  to  be  true  to  the  spirit  of  righteous- 
ness throughout  the  world.  I  believe  it  prob- 
able that  the  United  States  might  have  inter- 

[vii] 


Introduction 

fered  on  behalf  of  Belgium  without  involving 
itself  in  the  war;  but  I  hold  righteousness  first 
and  the  alternative  of  peace  or  war  second; 
and  it  was  our  duty  to  act  on  behalf  of  Belgium, 
be  the  consequences  what  they  might  be.  As 
Mr.  Sprague  shows,  the  American  government 
has  been  derelict  in  its  duty  under  international 
law,  and,  so  far  from  being  neutral,  has  really, 
by  its  failure  to  perform  its  duty,  been  of  aid  to 
Germany  in  destroying  Belgium.  Nor  is  the 
failure  limited  only  to  failure  to  protest  against 
the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  and  the 
subjugation  of  Belgium.  As  Mr.  Sprague 
shows,  outrages  of  every  kind,  in  defiance  of 
the  Hague  and  Geneva  Conventions,  have  been 
committed  by  the  German  armies  in  Belgium 
and  Northern  France,  on  the  English  coasts, 
and  against  English  and  neutral  ships;  and 
finally  our  own  ships  have  been  destroyed  and 
our  own  people  murdered;  and  yet  our  admin- 
istration has  not  dared  to  stand  up  for  Ameri- 
can honor,  for  American  interest  and  for  the 
welfare  of  humanity.  I  commend  particularly 
what  Mr.  Sprague  has  written  in  connection 
with  the  so-called  "sympathetic  neutrality, ' ' 
which  ex-President  Jordan  has  advocated.  In 
advancing  this  argument  ex-President  Jordan 
has  studiously  favored  criminality  by  express- 
ing the  same  sympathy  for  it  as  for  its  victims. 
He  preaches  for  America  the  Gospel  of  national 
cowardice,  so  far  as  our  own  rights  are  con- 
cerned, and,  as  regards  our  international  duties, 

[  viii  1 


Introduction 

he  preaches  the  meanest  and  basest  form  of 
abandonment  of  morality.  As  Mr.  Sprague 
says,  he  is  profoundly  silent  as  regards  all  the 
moral  considerations  involved  in  the  war;  he 
dares  not  say  one  word  in  condemnation  of  the 
abhorrent  immorality,  of  the  infamous  crime 
and  wickedness,  of  the  guilty  parties  in  this 
war.  He  actually  says  that  we  are  not  to  be 
pro  or  anti  anything !  In  other  words,  he  takes 
a  position  as  degrading  as  if  in  our  internal  af- 
fairs he  announced  that  he  was  neutral  between 
the  white  slaver  and  the  white  slaver's  victim 
and  was  not  "pro  or  anti"  either  the  bestial 
creature  who  rapes  a  child  or  the  child  who  suf- 
fers the  dreadful  fate.  Mr.  Sprague  is  quite 
right  in  saying  that  the  action  of  our  govern- 
ment, in  acting  on  the  principles  thus  set  forth 
by  the  more  abject  professional  pacificists,  has 
convicted  the  American  Eepublic  of  wrong,  of 
cowardice ;  and  of  complicity  in  the  worst  inter- 
national crime  that  has  been  committed  since 
Napoleon's  downfall  a  century  ago. 

America  owes  it  to  itself  to  prepare ;  first,  so 
as  to  be  able  to  act  in  its  own  defence;  and 
second,  so  that  its  weight  may  be  felt  when  it 
takes  action,  as  it  ought  to  take  action,  in  order 
to  fight  for  righteousness  and  for  the  good  of 
others,  of  humanity  at  large,  if  the  need  should 
arise;  and  it  owes  it  to  itself  to  prove  by  such 
action  that  it  repudiates  the  base  and  evil  doc- 
trine which  would  teach  us  that  a  nation  does 
its  duty  by  observing  a  timid  and  selfish  neu- 

[ix] 


Introduction 

trality  between  right  and  wrong,  even  when  the 
right  is  absolutely  clear  and  when  the  wrong 
represents  every  possible  variant  of  inter- 
national crime. 

(Signed)  Theodore  Eoosevelt. 

Oyster  Bay 

Long  Island,  N.  Y. 

August  16th,  1915 


[x] 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Introduction vii 

I.    "Made  in  Germany" 1 

II.    Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments         .  30 

III.  German  Militarism 52 

IV.  The  Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality     .  101 
V.    German  Culture 158 


[xi] 


►  y      •* 


CHAPTER  I 
"MADE  IN  GERMANY" 

"We  do  not  mean  merchandise,  but  the  war. 
"Made  in  Germany"  is  the  proud  trade-mark 
that  bespeaks  quality.  "Made  in  Germany" 
will  be  the  historical  mark  that  will  designate 
the  most  Titanic  and  Satanic  war  our  planet 
has  witnessed.  The  hosts  of  Xerxes  at  Ther- 
mopylae numbered  two  and  a  half  million.  At 
Issus,  Darius  had  an  army  of  six  hundred  thou- 
sand, while  Alexander  never  commanded  over 
one  hundred  and  thirty-five  thousand  troops. 
The  armies  of  both  Caesar  and  Pompey  at 
Pharsalia  numbered  only  seventy  thousand. 
Napoleon  invaded  Russia  with  six  hundred 
thousand  troops,  while  the  combined  armies  at 
Waterloo  numbered  less  than  two  hundred  and 
fifty  thousand.  Now  Europe  trembles  beneath 
the  tread  of  seven  million  soldiers  bent  upon 
slaughtering  each  other. 

The  responsibility  of  beginning  the  war  is 
greater  than  any  nation  can  bear.  The  hys- 
terical attempts  of  German  apologists  to  ex- 
onerate their  country  does  them  credit,  for  the 
historian  of  Germany  will  point  out  this  bloody 
blotch  on  her  escutcheon  and  exclaim  with 
Lady  Macbeth,  "It  will  not  out,  0,  damned 

[l] 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

spot!"  Undisputed  testimony  compels  this 
verdict. 

The  triple  alliance  of  Germany,  Austria  and 
Italy  confronts  the  triple  entente  of  Great 
Britain,  France  and  Russia.  If  either  of  these 
nations  is  attacked  by  one  of  the  other  group, 
both  groups  or  all  the  six  nations  are  involved. 
This  is  so  well  understood  that  if  one  nation  is 
determined  upon  war  no  amount  of  diplomacy 
can  avert  it;  but  diplomacy  can — and  in  this 
case  does — show  what  nation  was  determined 
upon  war.  This  does  not  imply  that  other  na- 
tions were  wholly  free  from  blame.  The  trade- 
mark ''Made  in  Germany"  does  not  mean  that 
all  the  constituents  of  the  article  are  of  German 
origin,  but  that  the  article  as  a  completed  prod- 
uct and  put  upon  the  market  is  German.  So  of 
this  war:  "Made  in  Germany"  does  not  mean 
that  other  nations  are  not  more  or  less  contrib- 
utory, but  that  the  war,  as  a  completed  product, 
was  put  upon  the  world  by  Germany. 

The  tragedy  at  Sarajevo  on  June  28,  1914, 
was  incidental  and  a  mere  pretext.  Austria, 
previously  incited  by  Germany,  sent  an  ulti- 
matum to  Servia  making  ten  demands.  Servia 
assented  to  nine  and  offered  to  arbitrate  the 
tenth.  No  fairer  proposition  could  be  made. 
Upon  receiving  this  answer  Austria  hesitated, 
as  well  she  might,  for  she  had  no  longer  cause 
for  war. 

At  this  juncture  Austria  and  all  the  world 
turned    to    Germany.     One    word    from    her 

[2] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

would  halt  all  war  proceedings.  Would  she 
speak  that  word  ?  Alas,  no !  The  German  am- 
bassador at  Vienna  said,  "As  for  Germany, 
she  knew  very  well  what  she  was  about  in  back- 
ing up  Austria-Hungary  in  the  matter."  Ger- 
many's " White  Paper"  says,  "We  assured 
Austria  that  any  action  considered  necessary 
to  end  the  movement  in  Servia  would  meet  with 
our  approval.  She  (Servia)  had  led  Europe  to 
the  brink  of  a  world  war  ...  we  would  not 
advise  our  ally  to  take  a  yielding  attitude." 
The  war  sure  to  follow  these  words  may  justly 
be  labelled,  "Made  in  Germany."  Austria  be- 
gan at  once  to  mobilize,  as  did  Russia,  Servia 's 
ally.  All  Europe  is  now  trembling.  Sir 
Edward  Grey  in  his  heroic  efforts  for  peace  has 
about  persuaded  Russia  and  Austria  to  meet 
in  a  peace  conference  with  other  nations.  Hope 
springs  up  everywhere  at  the  prospect  of  peace 
which  would  have  filled  the  world  with  joy, 
when  "lo!  impossible  to  believe,  Germany  re- 
fuses to  enter  this  conference  of  the  nations 

Germany  not  only  precipitated  the 

war  but  she  desired  it." 

Upon  Germany's  refusal  to  participate  in  the 
proposed  conference  upon  technical  grounds, 
she  was  asked  to  suggest  some  other  method 
for  conference  but  declined  to  do  so. 

The  civilized  world  condemns  "Austria's 
brutal  ultimatum  and  indecent  precipitancy 
toward  Servia."  No  government  could  sub- 
mit to  it  and  continue  independent,  and  yet 

[31 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Germany  promptly  characterized  it  as  "equi- 
table and  moderate."  This  accords  perfectly 
with  her  purpose  of  war. 

The  triple  alliance  applies  only  to  defensive 
warfare.  On  this  ground  Italy  refused  to  sup- 
port Austria.  Germany,  therefore,  was  under 
no  obligations  to  assist  Austria ;  but  she  hastens 
to  assure  her  of  support. 

Germany,  unable  longer  to  conceal  her  pur- 
pose of  attacking  France,  comes  into  the  open 
and  asks  England  if  she  will  remain  neutral 
on  condition  that  Germany  will  promise  to 
acquire  no  French  territory  in  Europe.  When 
asked  if  she  would  make  the  same  promise  re- 
specting French  colonies,  she  declined  to  do  so. 
France  then  was  to  be  conquered  and  deprived 
in  part  or  in  whole  of  her  territories.  This 
proposal  to  betray  her  ally  and  stand  by  and 
see  France  ruined  filled  England  with  surprise 
and  indignation  and  she  promptly  rejected  the 
proposal. 

At  this  time,  July  31st,  Germany  made  a 
preposterous  demand  upon  Russia.  Russia  had 
mobilized  her  troops  in  the  lower  districts  to 
assist  Servia  against  Austria  and  assured 
Germany  that  she  would  not  mobilize  against 
Germany  or  attack  her  unless  Germany  took 
the  offensive.  In  spite  of  this  assurance,  Ger- 
many, on  July  31st,  addressed  an  ultimatum 
to  Russia  demanding  that  she  demobilize  all 
her  troops,  and  demanding  an  answer  within 
twelve  hours ;  unless  Russia  complied  Germany 

[4] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

would  mobilize  her  troops  on  the  Russian  and 
French  frontiers. 

By  this  act  the  die  was  cast.  Three  things 
are  to  be  noted  in  this  demand  by  Germany. 
First,  Germany  exceeded  her  rights  in  this 
ultimatum.  No  government  has  a  right  to 
demand  that  another  sovereign  government  de- 
mobilize its  troops.  If  Germany  really  wanted 
peace,  instead  of  this  unwarrantable  demand 
followed  by  a  declaration  of  war,  she  would 
have  proposed  that  both  governments  demo- 
bilize. Second,  the  time  limit  of  twelve  hours  in 
which  to  answer  was  impossible,  as  Germany 
well  knew.  Third,  this  ultimatum  made  the  war 
inevitable,  and  it  was  "Made  in  Gernianv." 

The  utter  emptiness  of  Germany's  claim 
that  she  is  acting  only  in  self-defense  and  fight- 
ing for  her  life,  is  seen  in  the  way  she  treated 
the  offer  of  England  to  come  to  her  defense  in 
case  of  attack.  Sir  Edward  Grey  while  plead- 
ing with  her  for  peace,  uttered  these  most  re- 
markable words :  "If  you  will  only  preserve  the 
peace  of  Europe,  I  will  endeavor  to  promote 
some  arrangements,  to  which  Germany  shall 
be  a  party,  whereby  she  could  be  assured  that 
no  aggressive  or  hostile  policy  would  be  pur- 
sued against  her  or  her  allies  by  France, 
Russia,  or  ourselves  jointly  or  separately." 
Germany  virtually  assured  of  protection  by 
Great  Britain  even  if  the  latter  had  to  break 
with  her  allies  and  act  "separately"!  For  any 
"arrangement"  that  could  give  such  "assur- 

[5] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

ance"  must  involve  the  possibility  of  acting 
"separately"  if  need  be.  Germany  promised 
the  support  of  England  against  the  world  if 
she  will  only  pursue  a  course  whereby  the 
"peace  of  Europe  can  be  secured"!  All  honor 
to  Sir  Edward  Grey  for  these  oracular  words 
inspired  by  the  Prince  of  Peace.  They  present 
to  Germany  the  crucial  test  of  her  sincerity  re- 
garding peace.  How  does  she  receive  them? 
She  ignores  them  and  declares  war. 

That  Germany  made  the  war  is  settled  at 
once  and  forever  by  the  frank  admission  of  the 
emperor  himself.  On  August  4th,  the  Kaiser 
declared  from  the  throne  as  follows:  "The 
present  situation  arose  from  ill  will  existing 
for  years  against  the  strength  and  prosperity 
of  the  German  empire." 

It  is  not  then  the  tragedy  at  Sarajevo,  nor 
Servian  agitation,  nor  the  Austrian  ultimatum, 
nor  Russian  mobilization,  nor  all  of  these  to- 
gether that  is  the  real  cause  of  "the  present 
situation,"  but  "ill  will  against  German  pros- 
perity"; Germany  resents  this  "ill  will";  she 
will  not  allow  a  feeling  of  "jealousy"  on  the 
part  of  other  nations,  and  so  will  punish  them 
by  making  war  upon  them. 

This  reason  for  war  is  utterly  inadequate  and 
puerile,  as  shown  by  the  "great  strength  and 
prosperity ' '  of  Germany,  which  have  developed 
side  by  side  with  this  alleged  "ill  will,"  no 
instance  of  which  the  Kaiser  deigns  to  specify. 
If  it  has  been  so  harmless  in  the  past  how  does 

[6] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

it  suddenly  become  a  bogy?  The  question  un- 
masks the  real  purpose  of  Germany,  which  is 
conquest  and  power. 

This  is  just  as  clearly  brought  out  in  the 
Emperor's  speech  at  the  palace  before  the  as- 
sembled thousands.  He  said,  "Envious  people 
everywhere  are  compelling  us  to  our  just 
defense."  Defense?  No  attack  by  anybody  is 
hinted  at.  No  invasion,  no  hostile  act,  no  threat 
from  anyone,  no  injury  to  her  interests  which 
are  so  prosperous  as  to  excite  the  admiration 
and  envy  of  the  world,  and  yet  Germany  must 
spring  to  her  "just  defense" — against  what? 
Why,  "envious  peoples  everywhere."  To 
punish  them  she  will  drench  Europe  in  blood. 

The  point  now,  however,  is  that  this  clear 
and  unqualified  admission  of  the  emperor 
shows  that  the  war  was  "Made  in  Germany." 
"We  can  safely  go  a  step  further  on  the  highest 
authority ;  the  German  under  secretary  of  state 
for  foreign  affairs  said,  on  July  26th,  "This 
step  was  taken  on  his  majesty's  own  initiative." 

Germany's  Attitude  Toward  Treaties 

A  treaty  is  a  solemn  contract  between 
nations.  The  great  treaties  of  Europe  begin  as 
follows :  "In  the  Name  of  the  Most  Holy  and  In- 
divisible Trinity,"  or  "In  the  Name  of 
Almighty  God. "  It  is  the  most  sacred  contract 
mankind  can  make.  It  is  more  binding  than 
the  marriage  contract  or  covenants  concerning 
private  property,  since  all  civilization,  all  prog- 

[71 


"Made  in  Germany" 

ress  in  the  world,  human  or  divine,  depend 
upon  it. 

Such  a  treaty  existed  between  Belgium  and 
the  governments  of  Great  Britain,  France, 
Germany,  Austria  and  Eussia.  In  this  treaty 
Belgium  agreed  to  be  neutral  in  case  of  war  be- 
tween these  parties,  and  they  each  agreed  to 
keep  out  of  Belgium  and  help  her  keep  the 
others  out  in  case  of  invasion.  Thus  Belgian 
neutrality  was  guaranteed.  Germany  was  un- 
der special  obligation  to  respect  this  guarantee 
since  she  had,  through  Bismarck  in  1870,  ex- 
pressly renewed  it  and  in  writing.  This  obli- 
gation was  distinctly  recognized  by  the  German 
chancellor,  who  on  August  4th,  said  in  the 
Reichstag,  "Our  troops  have  occupied  Luxem- 
burg, and  are  perhaps  even  now  on  Belgian 
soil.  This  act  is  contrary  to  the  rights  of 
nations."  Fatal  admission,  whereat  history 
will  pause. 

France,  trusting  to  Germany's  promise,  had 
left  her  northern  frontier  unprotected.  Ger- 
many would  take  advantage  of  this  trust  and 
the  defenseless  frontiers  by  attacking  France 
through  Belgian  territory.  Accordingly  Ger- 
many now  requests  England  to  become  neutral 
and  to  violate  her  agreement  to  guarantee  Bel- 
gian neutrality,  and  to  allow  Germany  to  do 
the  same  by  moving  her  armies  through  Bel- 
gium and  using  it  as  a  basis  of  operations  in 
making  war  against  France.  England,  pro- 
foundly moved  and  indignant  at  the  vicious 

[8] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

character  of  this  request,  promptly  refuses  to 
repudiate  her  solemn  international  obligations 
by  betraying  Belgium  and  sacrificing  her  own 
self-respect  and  honor. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  now  requests  France  and 
Germany  to  say  whether  they  will  respect 
their  guarantee  of  Belgian  neutrality.  France 
answers  yes ;  Germany,  no.  Germany  now  sends 
an  ultimatum  to  Belgium  saying  that  she  can- 
not respect  the  latter 's  neutrality,  but  is  about 
to  make  use  of  her  territory  in  attacking 
France.  Germany  adds  that  she  will  respect 
Belgium's  sovereignty  and  make  good  all 
losses  unless  she  offers  resistance,  in  which 
case  Germany  will  treat  her  as  an  enemy. 

This  message  struck  Belgium  with  amaze- 
ment, indignation  and  terror.  Under  the  pal- 
ladium of  neutrality  she  had  for  seventy  years 
enjoyed  peace  and  prosperity.  She  was  now 
stunned  at  the  perfidy  of  Germany  in  demand- 
ing that  she  violate  her  sacred  promise  of  neu- 
trality, allow  her  soil  to  become  the  theatre  of 
war,  and  shamefully  betray  France,  one  of  the 
signatories  to  the  treaty  guaranteeing  her 
neutrality. 

Belgium  did  not  hesitate  a  moment.  She  re- 
fused Germany 's  demand  and  declared  that  she 
would  defend  her  "  rights  by  every  means  in 
her  power." 

Just  here  dates  speak  louder  than  Germany 's 
protestations  of  desiring  and  seeking  peace  and 
show  her  purpose  of  war  and  her  responsibility 

[9] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

for  beginning  it.  Belgium  received  Germany's 
ultimatum  August  2nd ;  she  replied  August  3rd ; 
Germany  attacked  her  August  4th.  German 
troops,  therefore,  must  have  been  marching 
towards  Belgium  before  Germany  deigned  to 
give  any  notice  of  her  purpose. 

This  contempt  of  Belgium,  this  utter  oblivion 
of  treaty  obligations  and  the  rights  of  nations 
staggers  the  world:  indeed,  the  German  chan- 
cellor declared  that  this  treaty  which  guaran- 
teed Belgian  neutrality  was  only  "a  scrap  of 
paper." 

In  the  councils  of  nations  what  weight  can 
hereafter  attach  to  the  promises  of  Germany? 
Gladstone's  admission  that  a  "particular  posi- 
tion" might  exempt  a  guarantor  of  neutrality 
from  participating  in  a  war  to  enforce  it,  a 
doctrine  that  the  newer  Christian  ethics  ren- 
ders more  and  more  untenable,  has  no  appli- 
cation to  this  case.  Germany's  only  excuse  is 
"military  necessity" — the  very  exigency  the 
treaty  was  designed  to  meet. 

In  a  treaty  between  sister  nations  Germany 
solemnly  appeals  to  the  "Most  Holy  and  In- 
divisible Trinity"  to  witness  her  sincerity  and 
fidelity  in  the  performance  of  its  stipulations, 
and  then,  when  it  suits  her  convenience,  she 
calls  that  treaty  "a  scrap  of  paper,"  tramples 
it  in  the  dust  and  plunges  Europe  in  a  sea  of 
blood.  Has  any  nation,  ancient  or  modern,  civ- 
ilized or  savage,  ever  presented  to  the  human 
race  a  more  revolting  example  of  moral  apos- 

[10] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

tacy?  The  blessings  of  peace,  the  horrors  of 
war,  the  sanctity  of  treaties,  national  honor,  in- 
ternational law,  the  claims  of  humanity  and  the 
behests  of  the  Almighty,  render  this  cruel  and 
wanton  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  an  insult 
to  civilization  and  the  highest  crime  known  to 
mankind. 

Germany's  Secret  Preparation  for  War 

"When  Germany's  troops  had  penetrated 
Belgium  and  France,  certain  soldiers  were 
heard  to  exclaim,  "It  seems  natural  to  be 
around  here  again."  It  seems  that  these  sol- 
diers had  been  detailed  months  before  to  visit 
these  places  and  find  out  the  condition  of  the 
roads,  the  places  where  supplies  could  be  had, 
the  means  of  shelter  for  troops,  etc. 

Several  years  ago  the  Germans,  under  pre- 
tence of  digging  wells  or  laying  foundations  for 
factories,  made  concrete  platforms  in  the  coun- 
try before  the  Maubeuge  forts.  Somehow  these 
factories  did  not  go  up ;  but  when  at  length  the 
bugle  sounded  for  war,  the  factories  placed  on 
these  platforms  took  the  shape  of  monstrous 
cannon  of  longer  range  than  those  of  the  forts. 
Thus  the  forts  were  helpless  and  obliged  to 
succumb. 

The  British  embassy  at  Washington  officially 
declares  what  indeed  is  well  known,  that  under 
pretext  of  commerce,  Germany  ' '  since  1906  has 
established  an  elaborate  network  of  strategical 
railways  leading  from  the  Rhine  to  the  Belgian 

[11] 


"Made  in  Germany* 

frontier  through  a  barren,  thinly-populated 
tract,  deliberately  constructed  to  permit  of  the 
sudden  attack  upon  Belgium  which  was  carried 
out  two  months  ago. 

According  to  the  London  Times,  "an  inter- 
cepted letter  addressed  to  the  commander  of 
the  German  gunboat  Eber  .  .  .  contained  in- 
structions from  Berlin,  dated  June  14,  1914,  a 
fortnight  before  the  Sarajevo  murders,  reveal- 
ing a  complete  system  for  coaling  the  German 
navy  on  the  outbreak  of  war,  through  secret 
agents  in  Cape  Town,  New  York  and  Chicago.' ' 
If  this  be  the  fact  it  shows  that  neither  the 
Sarajevo  tragedy  nor  any  other  grievance  of 
Austria  against  Servia  furnished  anything 
more  than  a  pretext  for  a  war  which  Germany 
was  determined  to  make. 

For  years  Germany  has  carried  on  a  spy 
system  in  Belgium  and  France  so  elaborate  and 
extensive  as  to  be  almost  incredible.  Thousands 
of  spies  scattered  through  these  countries  and 
ostensibly  acting  as  business  men  or  laborers, 
have  been  busy  in  obtaining  exact  information 
of  large  and  small  details  which  are  now  in  the 
possession  of  German  officers  and  are  of  the 
greatest  value  to  the  invaders.  For  example, 
these  officers  have  a  list  of  rich  men  in  every 
city  whom  they  select  as  hostages.  They  have 
an  estimate  of  the  ready  money  in  every  city, 
know  where  every  horse  and  ton  of  hay  can  be 
found,  where  every  river  can  be  forded  and 
where  every  bridge  is  located.     It  is  now  re- 

[12] 


)) 


"Made  in  Germany' 

marked  "that  at  the  end  or  near  the  end  of 
many  bridges  having  strategic  importance 
there  was  a  German  factory. ' '  In  France  it  is 
said  "the  Germans  know  how  many  bottles  of 
wine  may  be  expected  in  each  locality. ' ' 

Of  course  a  country  providing  for  a  strictly 
defensive  war  may  employ  spies,  but  a  gov- 
ernment that  will  carry  on  such  a  spy  sys- 
tem as  this  in  other  countries  at  great  labor 
and  expense  is  looking  for  compensation 
only  in  one  way,  and  that  is  by  aggressive 
war. 

We  do  not  know  what  secret  correspondence 
took  place  between  Germany  and  Austria  prior 
to  the  war,  but  Germany  now  publishes  a 
"White  Paper"  that  shows  that  she  alone  in- 
stigated it.  It  says,  "We  assured  Austria  that 
any  action  considered  necessary  to  end  the 
movement  in  Servia  .  .  .  would  meet  with  our 
approval."  It  advises  Austria  "not  to  take  a 
yielding  attitude"  toward  Servia,  even  if  it 
"should  bring  Russia  into  the  field"  and 
"involve  us  in  a  war."  Could  Germany  have 
employed  language  more  inflammable?  Ger- 
many was  behind  Austria's  ultimatum  to  Servia 
and  Austria  was  her  willing  tool ;  otherwise  she 
never  would  have  thus  challenged  both  Servia 
and  Russia.  It  is  because  the  word  "war" 
was  first  on  German  lips,  because  she  first  ad- 
vised it,  secretly  planned  for  it  and  took  the  first 
steps  to  bring  it  on,  that  we  say  the  war  was 
"Made  in  Germany." 

[13] 


"Made  in  Germany* 
The  Allies  Did  Not  Make  the  "War 

The  horrors  of  war  have  led  to  the  indiscrim- 
inate censure  of  all  the  nations  engaged  in  it. 
This  is  unjust  and  foolish.  War  is  not  the  only- 
hell  nor  the  worst  one.  Unrighteousness  or  in- 
justice is  worse  than  war.  The  peace-at-any- 
price  doctrine  is  immoral  and  is  opposed  to  the 
Christian  religion,  and,  as  all  experience  shows, 
only  postpones  the  conflict.  "First  pure 
(righteous)  then  peaceable "  is  the  injunction  of 
the  Scriptures. 

Nations  as  well  as  individuals,  alone  or  al- 
lied, innocent  of  wrong-doing,  may  fight  in  self- 
defense,  but  only  as  a  last  resort  and  after 
every  effort  for  peace  has  failed. 

The  allies  did  not  make  this  war ;  it  was  made 
upon  them  by  Germany  that  spurned  every 
overture  of  the  allies  for  peace.  We  do  not  say 
that  the  allies  have  not  made  preparations  for 
war  in  the  past,  or  have  done  all  they  could  to 
promote  peace,  or  that  they  are  better  or  worse 
than  their  enemies.  It  is  admitted  that  past 
conduct,  causes  and  influences  are  more  or  less 
responsible  for  the  war,  but,  although  German 
apologists  drag  these  things  into  the  discussion, 
they  are  irrelevant.  The  issue  is  single.  If 
two  men  are  arraigned  for  fighting  and  it  ap- 
pears that  one  began  a  deadly  assault  upon 
the  other  in  spite  of  the  latter 's  earnest  request 
for  a  peaceful  settlement,  the  court  will  find 
the  aggressor  guilty.    The  court  will  not  listen 

[14] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

to  former  jealousies  and  animosities  between 
the  parties,  but  will  decide  the  case  upon  its 
own  merits  and  the  immediate  facts,  and  will 
find  the  aggressor  guilty.  He  who  threatened 
violence,  refused  peace  and  struck  the  first 
blow  will  be  declared  guilty,  while  the  attacked, 
no  matter  how  hard  he  hits  back,  will  be 
declared  innocent. 

England  Did  Not  Begin  the  War 

Chancellor  Lloyd-George  was  earnestly  urg- 
ing a  reduction  of  armaments  on  the  very  day 
Austria  sent  her  ultimatum  to  Servia. 

Winston  Churchill's  voice  was  raised  elo- 
quently to  induce  Great  Britain  to  reduce  her 
navy;  but  when  Germany  would  not  agree  to 
any  reduction,  he  felt  that  England  had  no 
choice  but  must  be  prepared. 

Sir  Edward  Grey's  efforts  to  prevent  war 
were  heroic. 

Austria's  ultimatum  to  Servia  was  on  July 
23rd.  The  war  began  ten  days  later,  August 
2nd.  During  those  ten  days  according  to  The 
Outlook,  Sir  Edward  Grey  sent  no  less  than 
forty-seven  telegrams  and  letters,  in  the  inter- 
ests of  peace,  to  English  representatives  at  the 
capitals  of  Europe.  This  would  make  four  or 
five  letters  a  day  or  one  every  two  hours  for 
each  of  the  ten  working  days  of  eight  hours 
each.  He  asked  Servia  to  give  Austria  the 
fullest  satisfaction  if  her  charges  were  true ;  he 
urged  France,  Germany,  Russia  and  Italy  to 

[15] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

join  England  in  a  combined  effort  for  peace. 
All  promptly  assented  except  Germany  which 
declined.  Still  undiscouraged  Sir  Edward  Grey 
declared  himself  ready  to  join  the  four  powers 
in  any  method  looking  for  peace  and  pointed 
out  the  great  danger  of  war.  As  the  danger 
drew  on  he  made  one  last  supreme  bid  for  peace 
by  a  virtual  promise  to  Germany  of  England's 
assistance  in  case  of  need.  Germany  had  de- 
clared that  her  only  object  was  self-defense 
against  the  impending  attacks  of  enemies.  Sir 
Edward  Grey  now  promised  Germany  that  if 
she  would  keep  the  peace,  he  would  "promote 
an  arrangement  to  which  Germany  could  be  a 
party,  by  which  she  could  be  assured  that  no 
aggressive  or  hostile  policy  would  be  pursued 
against  her  or  her  allies  by  France,  Russia  or 
ourselves  jointly  or  separately." 

Although  Germany  ignored  these  words, 
which  left  her  without  a  shadow  of  excuse  for 
war,  the  world  will  not  forget  them.  No  sub- 
limer  words  were  ever  heard  in  the  parliaments 
of  the  world  than  these  uttered  by  Britain's 
great  statesman  and  peacemaker.  They  show 
conclusively  that  England  did  not  want  war; 
she  did  not  expect  it,  was  not  prepared  for  it 
and  was  the  last  to  engage  in  it,  and  then 
only  to  fulfil  her  solemn  international  obliga- 
tions, to  protect  a  weaker  and  worthy  nation 
from  destruction  by  a  more  powerful  one 
and  to  preserve  her  own  self-respect  and 
honor. 

[16] 


.if 


"Made  in  Germany' 

Russia  Did  Not  Begin  the  War 

All  European  nations  knew  of  the  entente  be- 
tween Servia  and  Russia,  and  that  Russia 
would  not  allow  either  the  territory  or  sover- 
eignty of  Servia  to  be  impaired.  "When,  there- 
fore, on  July  24th,  Austria  sent  her  impossible 
ultimatum  to  Servia  and  demanded  an  answer 
within  twenty-four  hours,  Sazonof,  premier  of 
Russia,  on  the  same  day  asked  Austria  to  ex- 
tend the  time  in  order  that  the  Powers  might 
have  an  opportunity  to  consider  the  matter. 
Austria  refused.  On  the  26th,  Sazonof  appealed 
to  Italy  and  Germany  to  influence  their  ally, 
Austria,  in  favor  of  peace.  The  next  day  he 
accepted  England's  proposal  for  a  conference 
of  the  powers — or  any  other  method  that  prom- 
ised peace.  The  next  day  he  twice  telegraphed 
England  urging  her  to  influence  Germany  for 
peace.  The  next  day  he  telegraphed  Germany 
that  the  Russian  mobilization  was  not  against 
Germany  nor  did  it  indicate  aggressive  meas- 
ures toward  Austria,  and  urged  a  conference 
of  Germany,  France,  England  and  Italy,  and 
also  one  between  Austria  and  Russia,  to  secure 
peace.  Both  Germany  and  Austria  refused. 
The  next  day  he  telegraphed  England  that 
Russia  would  adopt  any  measures  England 
might  suggest  for  peace.  On  the  next  two  days 
— July  30th  and  31st — he  telegraphed  Ger- 
many, France,  Austria,  England  and  Italy,  that 
if  Austria  would  consent  to  stay  the  march  of 

[17J 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

her  armies  on  Servia,  and  would  allow  the 
powers  to  consider  what  reparation  Servia 
should  make  to  Austria  without  impairing  her 
sovereignty,  Russia  would  cease  her  military 
preparations.  Austria  again  refused  her  con- 
sent to  this  proposal.  On  the  next  day  Germany 
declared  war  against  Eussia,  because  Russia  re- 
fused to  demobilize  her  troops. 

The  above  named  efforts  of  Russia  to  secure 
peace  are  effectively  summarized  in  The  Out- 
look of  October  7,  1914. 

A  careful  perusal  of  the  "White  Papers"  of 
both  England  and  Germany  and  the  Russian 
"Orange  Paper,"  all  official  documents,  will 
convince  any  unprejudiced  person  that  the  war 
was  not  begun  by  Russia.  On  the  contrary 
Russia  did  everything  that  a  peace-seeking 
nation  could  do  to  prevent  war. 

When  the  Austrian  troops  first  attacked  the 
Servian  army,  the  latter,  to  the  surprise  of  all 
nations,  declined  to  fight  and  "fell  back."  It 
now  appears  that  this  was  done  at  the  request 
of  Russia  in  order  to  give  the  powers  further 
time  for  a  peace  conference.  Russia  even  went 
so  far  as  to  declare  that  she  was  "quite  ready 
to  stand  aside  and  leave  the  question  in  the 
hands  of  England,  France,  Germany  and 
Italy." 

France  Did  Not  Begin  the  War 

France  had  the  least  to  say  and  was  next  to 
the  last  to  act  of  any  state  engaged  in  the  war. 

[18] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

It  was,  however,  well  understood  that  France 
and  Russia  were  bound  to  act  together.  This 
explains  the  determination  of  Germany  first 
to  crush  France  and  then  turn  her  attention  to 
Russia.  France  had  given  no  cause  for  war. 
She  was  not  thinking  of  war  and  was  un- 
prepared for  it.  This  is  admitted  by  the  Ger- 
man ambassador  at  Vienna,  who  said, ' l  France, 
too,  was  not  at  all  in  a  condition  for  facing 
war. ' ' 

England  asked  the  powers  to  meet  in  confer- 
ence to  stay  the  war.  To  this  request  France 
replied,  "Your  proposal  is  accepted  by  the 
French  government. ' ' 

"When  Great  Britain  demanded  of  France 
and  Germany  to  say  whether  they  would  re- 
spect the  neutrality  of  Belgium,  France  said, 
yes;  Germany  said,  no.  Dr.  Frederick  Lynch, 
secretary  of  the  Church  Peace  union,  was  in 
France  and  Germany  when  the  war  broke  out, 
and  he  passed  through  Liege  two  days  before 
the  German  attack  upon  it.  In  his  "  Through 
Europe  on  the  Eve  of  War,"  he  says,  "The 
French  had  made  no  move  up  to  this  time  and 
were  still  trying  to  secure  peace  by  negotiations 
with  the  other  powers." 

In  no  country,  not  even  in  the  United  States, 
is  the  anti-militarist  sentiment  so  strong  as  in 
France.  Among  all  classes  various  organiza- 
tions and  groups  of  men,  clericals,  educators, 
workmen  and  statesmen  have  for  years  been 
opposing  war  with  such  determination  as  to  em- 

[19] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

barrass  and  alarm  the  government.  The  Con- 
federation of  Labor  with  its  500,000  paying 
members,  the  Federation  of  the  Teachers' 
Benevolent  association  numbering  100,000,  the 
socialists  groups  with  100  members  in  parlia- 
ment, have  all  united  in  an  anti-militarist  prop- 
aganda that  has  demoralized  the  army,  and 
defied  the  government.  It  was  felt  that  the  first 
shot  fired  in  war  might  be  the  signal  for  an- 
other commune.  A  writer  says  in  view  of  this 
feeling  throughout  France  that  "nothing  short 
of  actual  invasion  of  her  territory  by  German 
troops  could  have  compelled  France  to  take  an 
active  part  in  the  European  conflict." 

Austria-Hungary  the  Cat's-Paw  of  Germany 

"What  Austria  did  to  bring  on  the  war  was 
as  the  agent  or  cat's-paw  of  Germany.  Aus- 
tria's ultimatum  to  Servia  shows  a  grievance, 
but  it  does  not  show  a  sufficient  cause  for  war ; 
and  if  it  did,  it  was  entirely  removed  by  Ser- 
via's  answer. 

Austria  well  knew  that  war  with  Servia 
meant  war  with  Russia,  Servia 's  ally.  That 
Austria,  single-handed  would  challenge  forces 
that  could  promptly  swallow  her  up,  no  one  be- 
lieves. The  French  claim  that  "the  German 
emperor  forced  Austria  to  fight  when  she  was 
willing  to  submit  her  differences  with  Servia  to 
an  international  conference." 

Germany's  "White  Paper,"  page  one,  un- 
consciously discloses  the  fact  that  she  herself  is 

[20] 


"Made  in  Germany31 

the  real  cause  of  the  war.  This  "paper"  says, 
"It  was  the  idea  of  Russian  statesmen  that 
there  should  be  formed  a  Balkan  league  .  .  . 
against  the  existence  of  the  Austrian-Hunga- 
rian monarchy."  Then  the  part  each  Balkan 
state  was  to  play  is  set  forth.  "The  Austrian- 
Hungarian  government  advised  us  of  this  view 
of  the  situation  and  asked  our  opinion  in  the 
matter  .  .  .  we  were  able  to  assure  our  ally 
most  heartily  of  our  agreement  .  .  .  and  that 
any  action  she  might  take  .  .  .  would  receive 
our  approval.  We  were  fully  aware  that  .  .  . 
any  warlike  movement  on  the  part  of  Austria- 
Hungary  against  Servia  would  bring  Russia 
into  the  question  and  might  draw  us  into  a  war 
.  .  .  Our  interests  were  also  seriously  threat- 
ened ...  if  Servia  with  the  help  of  France  and 
Russia  had  been  allowed  to  imperil  the  exist- 
ence of  Austria,  she  would  be  no  longer  an  ally 
on  which  we  could  count  against  the  attitude 
of  our  eastern  and  western  neighbors,  which 
has  constantly  grown  more  threatening  .  .  . 
We,  therefore,  gave  Austria  a  free  hand." 

It  was  this  secret  "advice"  given,  we  know 
not  when,  and  which  may  be  the  only  part  Ger- 
many deigns  to  make  known,  that  pushed  the 
button  that  set  the  war  in  motion.  Germany 
was  ready  and  the  Sarajevo  tragedy  furnished 
the  pretext. 

That  Austria  was  merely  a  cat  's-paw,  is  con- 
clusively shown  by  the  Kaiser's  own  admission 
before  quoted:  "The  present  situation  arose 

[21] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

from  ill  will  existing  for  years  against  the 
strength  and  prosperity  of  the  German 
empire. ' ' 

A  Wak  of  Conquest  To  Be  "Made  in 
Germany" 

For  a  generation  such  a  war  has  been  pre- 
dicted and  advocated  in  Germany.  German 
scholars,  statesmen  and  militarists  have  been 
educating  the  people  to  believe  that  aggressive 
war,  conquest  for  German  national  expansion, 
dominion  and  glory,  was  in  harmony  with  the 
laws  of  nature  and  of  nature 's  God. 

Americans  who  have  occasionally  noticed 
such  sentiments  from  German  sources  have  dis- 
missed them  as  sporadic  and  chimerical.  We 
now  stand  aghast  at  the  fact  that  they  repre- 
sent a  philosophy  held  by  foremost  German 
scholars,  a  national  policy  held  by  the  kaiser, 
bureaucrats  and  militarists,  a  philosophy  and  a 
policy  that  are  responsible  for  the  war  and  that 
completely  dominate  Germany  in  this  crisis. 

Christendom  is  now  startled  at  the  discov- 
ery that  a  philosophy  so  subversive  of  religion, 
so  repugnant  to  Christian  ethics,  so  antagonis- 
tic to  the  new  spirit  of  peace  and  good  will 
toward  men,  in  a  word,  so  thoroughly  pagan, 
could  obtain  in  scientific,  cultured  and 
progressive  Germany. 

In  1875,  Heinrich  von  Treitschke  became  pro- 
fessor of  history  in  Berlin  and  also  a  member 
of  the  Reichstag.  His  brilliancy  attracted  to  his 

[22] 


"Made  in  Germany3* 

lecture  room  "a  dense  throng  not  only  of  stu- 
dents, but  of  soldiers,  writers,  officials,  all  the 
intellectual  leadership  of  Germany.' '  Having 
just  conquered  France  the  people  were  glory- 
ing in  their  prowess  and  the  fruits  of  victory. 
The  professor  taught  such  doctrines  as  these: 
' '  That  the  strong  should  triumph  over  the  weak 
is  an  inexorable  law  of  nature. ' '  The  idea  that 
weak  nations  have  a  right  to  live  ' '  cannot  for  a 
moment  be  allowed  to  check  the  career  of  Ger- 
man conquest.  Why  talk  of  founding  colonies  ? 
Let  us  take  Holland ;  then  we  shall  have  them 
ready  made."  "God  will  see  to  it  that  war 
always  recurs  as  a  drastic  medicine  for  the  hu- 
man race. ' '  The  downfall  of  England  and  the 
harvest  of  loot  that  could  be  reaped  was  a 
worthy  object.  His  words  are,  "Germany  with 
60,000,000  virile  people  should  address  herself 
to  the  downfall  of  England  .  .  .  and  then  of 
what  an  inheritance  to  take  possession!"  These 
ideas  appealing  to  passions  that  can  be  aroused 
far  more  readily  than  they  can  be  allayed,  took 
possession  of  German  universities,  schools  and 
influential  groups  of  people  and  spread  over 
the  land. 

Dr.  Hans  Delbruck,  professor  and  editor,  de- 
clared that  "Germany  was  bound  to  expand  at 
the  expense  of  one  and  all  of  the  three  great 
powers,  England,  France  and  Russia.  ...  It 
is  the  mission  of  Germany  to  save  Europe  and 
Asia  from  the  rule  of  the  Muscovite." 

Prof.  Wilhelm  Ostwald  of  Leipsic  university 

[23] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

says,  "The  way  to  have  peace  is  to  have  Ger- 
many victorious.  She  should  crush  England, 
and  break  up  Russia  and  reduce  France  to  vas- 
salage. ' '  We  should  have  taken  this  sentiment 
lightly  before  the  war,  but  now  we  see  that  it 
was  uttered  with  a  seriousness  that  is  nothing 
less  than  deadly. 

Three  years  ago  Gen.  Friedrich  von  Bern- 
hardi  wrote  a  book  on  ' '  Germany  and  the  Next 
"War."  It  is  the  textbook  of  German  militar- 
ism. It  created  consternation  in  England  and 
France.  We  quote:  "War  is  the  greatest  fac- 
tor in  the  furtherance  of  culture  as  well  as 
power."  "War  is  a  biological  necessity  of  the 
first  importance."  "Might  makes  right." 
"What  is  right  is  dictated  only  by  the  arbitra- 
ment of  war."  The  Christian  law  of  love 
"applies  only  to  individuals  of  the  same  state 
and  has  no  significance  for  the  relations  of  one 
country  to  another."  "The  idea  that  a  weak 
nation  has  the  same  right  to  live  as  a  powerful 
and  vigorous  nation  is  subversive  of  human  de- 
velopment." "Wars  deliberately  provoked 
have  had  the  happiest  results."  "A  sacrifice 
to  an  alien  nation  is  immoral."  "France  must 
be  so  completely  crushed  that  she  can  never 
again  cross  our  path."  "An  expression  of 
German  power  is  a  political  necessity  ...  it 
must  be  fought  and  won."  For  Germany,  "it 
is  either  world  power  or  downfall. "  "  Her  atti- 
tude must  be  offensive  and  aggressive  at  the 
start." 

[24] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

This  book  appeared  three  years  ago  and  de- 
clared that  the  time  to  proclaim  the  war  would 
be  1914.  It  sounds  like  history  rather  than 
prophecy.  It  is  the  Bible  of  the  dominating 
militarism  of  Germany.  Its  brutal  principles 
and  inhuman  doctrines  have  been  and  are  being 
followed  to  the  letter  by  the  Kaiser  and  his  ad- 
visors. The  wonder  is  that  they  waited  so  long 
before  beginning  the  war. 

Last  year  a  German  retired  military  officer 
wrote  in,  ''On  War  of  Today,"  "I  hope  the 
German  people  will  assert  and  maintain  itself 
as  the  dominating  race  of  Europe." 

The  German  philosopher,  Nietzsche,  in  his 
"War  and  the  People"  says,  "You  should  use 
peace  as  a  means  to  new  war  and  brief  peace 
more  than  a  long  one.  Do  you  say, '  It  is  a  good 
cause  by  which  a  war  is  hallowed '  f  I  say  unto 
you  it  is  a  good  war  which  hallows  every  cause. 
War  and  courage  have  done  greater  things  than 
love  of  one 's  neighbor. ' ' 

General  von  Edelsheim  of  the  Prussian  gen- 
eral staff,  recently  published  a  paper  in  which 
he  pointed  out  the  method  which  Germany  in 
its  conquest  of  the  world,  would  pursue  in  at- 
tacking the  United  States.  He  says,  "The 
Germans  have  to  ask  themselves  what  force 
they  can  bring  to  bear  in  order  to  meet  the 
attacks  of  the  United  States  against  their 
interests  and  to  impose  their  will. ' ' 

In  1880  von  Moltke  said,  "Perpetual  peace 
is   a   dream   and   it   is   not   even   a  beautiful 

[25] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

dream.  War  is  an  element  in  the  order  of 
the  world  ordained  by  God.  Without  war 
the  world  would  stagnate  and  lose  itself  in 
materialism." 

The  Belgian  "Gray  Paper"  shows  "that 
Belgium  tried  to  be  in  league  with  Germany 
three  years  ago.  It  tried  to  obtain  from  the 
German  government  a  declaration  that  Ger- 
many had  no  intention  of  violating  Belgian 
neutrality."  The  request  was  refused.  A  dis- 
tinguished writer  says,  "The  attack  on  Belgium 
had  been  carefully  planned  for  a  score  of 
years." 

Professor  Muensterberg  in  his,  "The  War 
and  America,"  eulogizes  war,  saying,  "Only 
war  can  adjust  the  power  of  countries  to  the 
changing  stages  of  their  inner  development." 
"It  is  the  grossest  immorality"  for  Americans 
to  say  "that  nations  should  respect  the 
possessions  of  other  nations." 

Prof.  John  Warbeke,  for  three  years  a  student 
in  a  German  university,  says,  "The  rank  and 
file,  as  well  as  the  aristocracy,  from  laborers 
and  small  shopkeepers,  petty  officials  and  stu- 
dents to  judges  of  the  supreme  court  and  uni- 
versity professors  who  have  become  secret 
counsellors,  not  only  in  Berlin  and  Bonn,  but  in 
Munich  and  Heidleberg,  all  have  become  omi- 
nously full  of  the  doctrine  of  the  survival  of  the 
fittest  and  the  consequent  expediency  of  power, 
not  only  in  intellectual  rivalry,  but  in  Krupps 
and  high  explosives." 

[26] 


"Made  in  Germany'' 

For  more  than  a  generation  German  children 
have  been  taught  in  school  and  by  all  the  multi- 
plied influences  in  both  public  and  private  life 
that  impress  the  plastic  mind  of  youth,  that  the 
chief  end  of  man  was  to  glorify,  not  God,  but 
the  army  and  war.  Obsessed  with  this  idea  and 
duped  with  the  utterly  false  belief  that  millions 
of  enemies  stood  on  their  borders  with  bristling 
bayonets  about  to  burn  their  homes,  sack  their 
cities  and  destroy  their  native  land,  the  German 
soldiers  entered  upon  the  war. 

Prof.  Roland  G.  Usher  of  Washington  uni- 
versity, at  St.  Louis,  published  a  year  ago  his 
"Pan-Germanism,"  wherein  he  asserts  that 
Germany's  purpose  might  "at  any  moment  re- 
sult in  a  war  whose  consequences  would  be  felt 
alike  by  the  farmers  in  North  Dakota,  the  oper- 
ators in  the  Lancashire  cotton  mills  and  the 
savages  in  the  heart  of  Africa."  This  was 
written  a  year  before  the  war  and  describes  the 
exact  state  of  things  today.  He  goes  on  to  say, 
"The  Germans  aim  at  nothing  less  than  the 
domination  of  Europe  and  of  the  world  by  the 
German  race  ...  it  is  an  aggressive  scheme 
for  the  actual,  forcible  conquest  of  the  world. ' ' 
This  German  author  has  attracted  wide  atten- 
tion for  the  clear,  dispassionate  exposition  of 
Germany's  purpose  and  program.  He  tells  us 
that  "in  the  German  navy  it  is  customary  to 
drink  to  a  toast,  'To  the  Day,'  "  and  that  the 
toast  "means  not  only  the  destruction  of  the 
British    empire    and    the    disruption    of    the 

[27] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

French  republic,  but  also  the  domination  of 
the  world." 

Dr.  Ernst  Eichard,  a  German,  says,  "The 
Germans  are  determined  to  win  at  any  cost,  and 
after  their  victory  to  leave  their  enemies  in 
such  shape  that  they  will  never  be  able  to  dis- 
turb the  peace  again."  In  other  words  they 
must  be  permanently  subject  to  Germany.  The 
note  of  vindictiveness  and  malice  in  this  utter- 
ance is  even  more  disturbing  than  its  idea  of 
conquest. 

The  German  Admiral  Hermann  Kirchoff 
writes  under  date  of  September  4th,  "England 
must  be  crushed.  But  is  this  possible?  Indeed 
it  is  .  .  .  German  military  and  naval  forces 
are  now  ready  to  throw  themselves  on  England 
and  destroy  it  by  all  means  at  their  disposal  by 
water,  in  the  air,  and  on  the  land." 

The  German  professors  Eucken  and  Haeckel 
of  Jena  issue  an  appeal  to  American  universi- 
ties for  sympathy  based  on  culture.  They  say, 
1 '  These  universities  know  what  German  culture 
means  to  the  world,  so  we  trust  they  will  stand 
by  Germany. ' ' 

German  pagan  intellectual  culture,  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  Christian  ethics  will  appeal  in  vain 
to  American  Christian  scholarship  and  ethical 
culture.  With  Americans  an  ounce  of  righteous- 
ness is  worth  a  ton  of  culture. 

We  are  not  now,  however,  concerned  with  the 
moral  character  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in 
the  foregoing  citations  by  representative  Ger- 

[28] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

mans.  What  we  do  say  is  this :  that  any  nation 
holding  these  views,  viz.,  that  might  makes 
right,  that  neighborly  love  ceases  at  the  state 
line,  that  " blood  and  iron"  are  preferable  to 
conference  and  peace,  that  the  size  of  a  nation 
determines  its  right  to  exist,  that  a  treaty  is 
only  "a  scrap  of  paper;"  and  to  uphold  it  is 
"hypocrisy";  that  respect  for  the  possessions 
of  other  nations  is  the  " grossest  immorality," 
that  militarism  is  superior  to  morals;  that  its 
"place  in  the  sun"  requires  it  to  put  all  other 
nations  in  the  shade  by  force  of  arms;  that 
killing  men  is  "a  biological  necessity";  that 
culture  rather  than  righteousness  exalts  a  na- 
tion and  that  Mars  is  the  only  true  God;  any 
nation  we  repeat  dominated  by  these  views,  is 
bound  to  make  war  and  such  a  nation  has  made 
this  war. 

Eleven  representative  Germans  have  now 
issued  a  pamphlet,  "The  Truth  About  Ger- 
many," which  says,  "  The  kaiser  had  the  moral 
courage  to  assume  the  responsibility  of  begin- 
ning the  conflict/'  History  will  accept  this 
declaration  that  the  war  was  "Made  in 
Germany." 


[29] 


CHAPTER  II 

OFFENSIVE  AND  DEFENSIVE 
ARMAMENTS 

Armaments  mean  equipments  of  war,  such  as 
troops,  munitions  and  warships.  There  is  much 
shallow  thinking  and  consequent  confusion  con- 
cerning them.  Probably  most  Americans  re- 
gard great  armaments  as  an  evil,  while  small 
armaments  may  be  a  good.  The  difficulty  of 
drawing  the  line  between  great  and  small  arma- 
ments leads  some  to  reject  them  altogether, 
while  the  views  of  others  are  as  wide  apart  as 
the  poles. 

The  Principle  of  Armaments 

This  principle  is  that  for  the  protection  of 
life  and  property,  the  necessary  means  may  be 
employed.  The  principle  applies  to  individuals 
as  well  as  to  nations.  It  is  the  principle  of  self- 
preservation,  everywhere  regarded  as  a  law  of 
nature. 

In  the  case  of  nations  these  necessary  means 
are  called  armaments ;  in  the  case  of  individuals 
no  one  word  covers  the  various  means  em- 
ployed. A  lock  on  the  door,  the  fastenings  and 
iron  shutters  on  the  windows,  the  burglar-proof 
safe,  the  massive,  walled-in  vaults  for  valuables, 

[30] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

the  steel  vest  worn  by  the  man  whose  life  is 
threatened,  these  and  other  devices,  as  well  as 
the  small  sword  and  pistol  are  the  armaments 
of  the  individual. 

The  clamorous  denunciation  of  armaments 
would  be  more  effective  if  it  did  not  overlook 
the  principle  involved.  It  is  clearly  incon- 
sistent for  a  man  to  denounce  all  means  of  pro- 
tection and  then  proceed  to  lock  his  doors 
against  burglars.  This  brings  us  to  an 
important  distinction. 

Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

In  applying  the  principle  of  armaments  to 
individuals,  the  examples  given  were  for  pur- 
poses of  defence.  So  in  the  case  of  the  nation, 
we  must  distinguish  sharply  between  offensive 
and  defensive  armaments.  The  failure  to  do 
this,  the  indiscriminate  condemnation  on  the  one 
hand,  and  praise  on  the  other  of  armaments,  re- 
gardless of  the  uses  for  which  they  are  de- 
signed, has  led  to  all  sorts  of  misapprehensions 
and  vagaries.  In  the  past  offensive  war  and 
armaments  have  not  only  been  tolerated  but 
praised;  to-day,  however,  they  are  not  only 
an  anachronism  but  an  outrage  against  our  civ- 
ilization. Defensive  armaments,  on  the  other 
hand,  are  not  only  justifiable  but  absolutely 
necessary. 

Only  three  hundred  years  ago  Cavendish 
wrote  as  follows;  "It  has  pleased  Almighty 
God  to  suffer  me  to  circumpass  the  whole  globe 

[31] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

of  the  world  ...  I  navigated  along  the  coasts 
of  Chili,  Peru  and  New  Spain  where  I  made 
great  spoils.  All  the  villages  and  towns  that 
ever  I  landed  at  I  burned  and  despoiled,  and 
had  I  not  been  discovered  upon  the  coast,  I  had 
taken  great  quantity  of  treasure.  The  Lord  be 
praised  for  his  mercies."  The  sweet  simplicity 
and  earnest  piety  of  the  pirate  add  luster  to 
his  exploits.  To-day  no  sentiment  could  be 
more  abhorrent  at  least  outside  of  Germany.  No 
sentiments  were  ever  more  repugnant  to  true 
religion. 

This  entire  change  of  the  world's  attitude 
towards  offensive  armaments  is  one  of  the 
greatest  triumphs  of  Christianity.  There  is  no 
better  evidence  of  this  change  than  the  em- 
phatic manner  in  which  the  warring  nations 
in  Europe  disclaim  responsibility  for  begin- 
ning the  war;  that  is,  for  the  offensive  use  of 
their  armaments.  On  the  other  hand  all  nations 
approve  of  defensive  armaments. 

Washington,  far  in  advance  of  his  time,  at 
least  in  the  old  world,  voiced  the  true  principle 
of  Christian  ethics  and  statesmanship  respect- 
ing war,  in  the  inscription  he  placed  upon  his 
three  swords  still  hanging  upon  the  wall  at 
Mount  Vernon.  It  reads  as  follows:  "These 
swords  are  accompanied  with  an  injunction  not 
to  unsheathe  them  for  the  purpose  of  shedding 
blood,  except  it  be  for  self-defence,  or  the  de- 
fence of  the  country  or  its  rights,  and  in  the 
latter  case  to  keep  them  unsheathed  and  to 

[32] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

prefer  falling  with   them  in  their  hands  to  the 
relinquishment  thereof. ' ' 

Defensive  Armaments  a  Necessity 

This  necessity  will  continue  so  long  as  na- 
tions are  liable  to  wanton  attack  and  spoliation 
by  others. 

All  instruments  of  war  however  humble  are 
armaments.  David's  sling  and  five  smooth 
stones  were  the  armaments  with  which  he  con- 
quered Goliath  and  put  to  rout  the  enemy. 
Canonicus,  Sachem  of  the  Narragansetts,  sent 
to  Miles  Stanclish  a  bundle  of  arrows  wrapped 
in  the  skin  of  a  rattlesnake;  Captain  Stanclish 
returned  the  skin  stuffed  with  powder  and 
balls.  These  simple  weapons  constituted  al- 
most the  entire  armaments  of  the  colonists.  In 
1776  Washington's  little  army,  confronting  the 
British  at  Boston,  was  in  imminent  danger 
from  the  want  of  powder.  At  length  Washing- 
ton received  an  armament  of  one  hundred  bar- 
rels of  powder,  and  when  the  curtain  rises 
again,  Howe  and  his  troops  are  evacuating 
Boston  with  a  dispatch  that  only  powder  can 
inspire. 

The  kind  and  size  of  defensive  armaments 
will  depend  upon  varying  conditions.  Our  great 
forts,  our  giant  Dreadnoughts  now  being 
equipped  with  sixteen  inch  cannon,  the  largest 
in  the  world  and  with  a  range  of  sixteen 
miles,  and  with  twice  the  penetrating  power 
of  the  German  howitzers  that  made  havoc  of 

[33] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Belgian  forts,  afford  no  better  protection 
to-day  than  did  these  simple  armaments  of  the 
colonies. 

The  necessity  for  defensive  armaments  is  rec- 
ognized by  the  Christian  Scriptures  which  con- 
tain our  organic  law,  and  upon  which  our 
political  constitutions  are  founded,  and  con- 
formity to  which,  according  to  Blackstone, 
alone  gives  validity  to  human  laws. 

The  passages  of  Scripture  which  are  quoted 
as  opposed  to  the  principle  of  armaments  may 
be  summed  up  in  that  one  which  says,  "Resist 
not  evil."  But  the  same  authority  says  also, 
"Resist  the  Devil."  Defensive  armaments 
alone  enable  us  to  "resist  the  Devil"  in  his 
most  hideous  form  of  offensive  war. 

The  same  divine  authority  that  said  to  Peter, 
"Put  up  thy  sword,"  says  to  all  his  disciples, 
"He  that  hath  no  sword  let  him  sell  his  gar- 
ments and  buy  one ' ' ;  that  is,  it  is  better  to  go 
naked  and  possess  a  sword,  than  to  be  clothed 
without  one. 

The  ultra-pacifists  who  decry  all  armaments 
unqualifiedly  are  reviving  the  doctrine  of  non- 
resistance.  This  doctrine  springs  from  one  lobe 
of  the  heart  acting  independently  not  only  of 
the  other,  but  of  all  the  other  faculties  of  the 
mind.  It  is  indefensible.  It  makes  government 
impossible  and  puts  a  premium  on  injustice; 
it  rewards  violence  and  punishes  virtue;  it  is 
unnatural,  irrational  and  leads  to  social 
anarchy. 

[34] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 
Defensive  Armaments  Hinder  War 

The  defensive  armaments  of  a  nation  tend 
to  restrain  other  nations  from  attacking  it. 
To  the  extent  of  this  restraint  defensive 
armaments  are  a  hindrance  to  war. 

Most  of  the  great  armaments  of  Europe  were 
designed  for  defence  only.  What  has  been  their 
effect  on  war  in  general  ?  Have  they  promoted 
peace  or  war?  Peace  most  assuredly.  Pacifists 
are  right,  however,  in  demanding  disarmament 
of  all  nations,  but  they  are  wrong  in  demanding 
that  one  nation  shall  disarm,  leaving  itself  a 
prey  to  other  armed  and  predatory  nations. 

Modern  huge  armaments  date  from  about 
1870.  Prior  to  that  date  wars  were  far  more 
numerous  than  since.  This  is  a  simple  histori- 
cal fact.  The  evolutionist  will  tell  you  that 
primitive  man,  as  destitute  of  weapons  as  the 
denizens  of  the  forest,  waged  unceasing  war- 
fare. The  Temple  of  Janus  at  Some,  kept  open 
in  time  of  war  and  closed  in  time  of  peace,  was 
closed  but  once  in  five  hundred  years.  The 
Franco-German  war  was  in  1871,  the  Crimean 
war  in  1854,  the  Italian  war  in  1859,  the  Russo- 
Austrian  in  1866,  our  own  civil  war  in  1861.  The 
blood  of  five  million  men  was  poured  out  in  the 
First  Empire;  sixty  thousand  men  were  killed 
and  wounded  in  our  war  of  1812;  since  1815 
France  has  had  twenty  wars  not  one  of  which 
was  due  to  modern  armaments.  Indeed,  before 
the  era  of  great  armaments  wars  were  almost 

[35] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

of  daily  occurrence.  It  may  be  truthfully  said 
that  as  armaments  have  increased  wars  have 
decreased. 

Other  agencies  have  contributed  to  this  re- 
sult. The  spirit  of  brotherhood  abroad  in  the 
earth,  the  great  and  beneficent  peace  move- 
ments, the  Hague  conferences,  the  humanities 
of  the  Gospel  of  Christ — all  these  have  helped; 
but  no  one  can  successfully  deny  that  the  ten- 
dency of  defensive  armaments  has  been  to 
hinder  war. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  very  possession  of  de- 
fensive armaments  breeds  a  war  spirit.  Even 
so,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  should  be  abol- 
ished. The  very  possession  of  money  or  other 
things  breeds  a  tendency  to  misuse  them;  but 
the  right  use  of  them  may  more  than  counter- 
balance this  tendency.  Pistol  toting  tends  to 
fighting  and  so  far  is  an  evil,  but  woe  to  the 
man  who  disarms  himself  when  all  about  him 
are  armed  and  some  of  them  avowed  robbers. 
The  remedy  is  not  to  stop  one  man  but  all 
men  from  the  evil  practice.  One  writer  says 
that  "an  army  or  a  navy  are  no  more  an 
incitement  to  war  among  reasonable  men  than 
a  policeman  is  an  incentive  to  burglary  or 
homicide. ' ' 

If  a  nation  is  incited  to  war  by  its  arma- 
ments, it  is  also  restrained  by  the  armaments 
of  the  enemy.  The  incentive  and  restraint  tend 
to  counterbalance  each  other,  and  were  the  ten- 
dencies equal,  their  armaments  would   neither 

[36] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

conduce  to  peace  nor  provoke  war.  That  the 
tendency  to  restrain  is  stronger,  is  historically 
shown  by  the  constantly  decreasing  number  of 
wars  since  the  rise  of  modern  armaments. 

No  one  more  ardently  desired  peace  than 
Washington,  but  he  did  not  hesitate  to  say, ' '  To 
be  prepared  for  war  is  one  of  the  most  effective 
ways  of  preserving  peace. ' '  He  spoke  in  view 
of  conditions  then  existing  among  the  nations 
that  permitted  war  upon  unoffending  people 
for  conquest,  territorial  expansion  and  plun- 
der. Precisely  such  is  the  war  Germany  is 
now  waging  upon  the  other  countries  of 
Europe.  Until  these  conditions  are  changed 
any  departure  from  the  words  of  Washington 
is  suicidal. 

Offensive  Armaments  Assure  War 

Since  offensive  and  defensive  armaments 
differ  only  in  respect  to  their  use,  it  may  be  said 
that  this  is  a  distinction  without  a  difference. 
On  the  contrary,  the  distinction  is  so  vital  that 
no  intelligent  discussion  on  the  subject  is  pos- 
sible without  it.  With  equal  consistency  one 
might  say  that  a  pistol  designed  to  be  put  under 
one 's  pillow,  is  to  be  regarded  in  the  same  light 
as  when  it  is  designed  for  murder. 

How  can  we  tell  when  a  nation  is  designing 
its  armaments  for  offensive  war?  The  answer 
is  simple.  When  such  armaments  exceed  the 
needs  for  defence.  For  years  Germany  has 
been    preparing    such    excessive    armaments. 

[37] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  statement  are  as 
follows : — 

(1)  Her  leaders  claim  that  Germany  be- 
gan the  war  with  armaments  sufficient  to  carry 
it  on  for  five  years.  No  other  nation  makes  any 
such  claim.  In  fact  the  allies  had  not  sufficient 
equipment  for  one  month  of  war. 

(2)  She  probably  has  at  this  present  time 
more  armaments  than  Great  Britain,  France 
and  Russia  combined,  and  it  may  be  more  than 
all  the  world  besides ;  not  of  a  single  class  like 
warships,  but  of  the  total  of  all  instruments  of 
war.  She  is  said  to  have  had  four  and  a  half 
billion  rifle  cartridges  in  stock  when  the  war 
began,  enough  to  depopulate  the  earth  if  three 
bullets  for  each  individual  could  do  it.  In  ad- 
dition to  this  she  had  on  hand  five  hundred 
million  pounds  of  explosives. 

(3)  She  has  already  supplied  large  quan- 
tities of  munitions  of  war  to  Austria  and 
Turkey. 

(4)  She  is  actually  able  with  the  aid  of 
Austria  to  cope  with  the  three  greatest  powers 
of  Europe. 

(5)  Great  Britain,  France  and  Russia,  pos- 
sessed at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  with  defen- 
sive armaments  only,  are  now  buying  arms 
from  the  United  States,  and  Russia  is  also 
buying  from  Japan. 

(6)  Germany  has  the  Krupp  plant  for  man- 
ufacturing arms  which  has  heretofore  exceeded 
in  capacity,  equipment  and  efficiency  those  of 

[38] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

Great  Britain,  France  and  Russia,  and  possibly- 
all  of  Asia,  Africa,  North  and  South  America 
combined. 

The  main  plant  at  Essen  occupies  1,200  acres, 
of  which  235  are  under  one  roof,  employing 
39,000  men.  Branches  at  Eheinhausen,  Duis- 
burg,  Neuwied  and  Engers  employ  15,000  more. 
The  dockyard  at  Kiel  occupies  55  acres  and 
employs  over  6,000  men.  10,000  are  digging 
coal  at  Annen  and  Gruson,  and  5,000  more  are 
mining  for  iron.  This  makes  a  total  of  75,000 
employes  with  a  pay  roll  of  $25,000,000  annu- 
ally, which  would  be  nearer  $50,000,000  in  the 
United  States. 

Within  the  last  fifty  years  this  plant  has  sold 
tens  of  thousands  of  guns  to  fifty  different  na- 
tions. In  all  the  world  nothing  like  this  was 
ever  before  seen. 

(7)  This  is  not  a  tithe  of  the  magnitude  and 
costliness  of  the  German  armaments.  Add  to 
it  her  military  railroads,  arsenals,  warships, 
baggage  trains,  commissariat,  motor  vehicles, 
Zeppelins,  electrics,  ambulance  wagons,  in- 
trenching implements,  her  vast  quantities  of 
accoutrements  for  millions  of  soldiers,  and  her 
conscript  system  forcing  every  able-bodied  man 
into  military  service  in  time  of  peace. 

The  point  is  not  that  Germany  has  arma- 
ments, but  that  their  vastness  is  far  in  excess  of 
her  needs  for  defence,  and  that  they  were  de- 
signed for  aggressive  war.  Behind  these  arma- 
ments there  is  a  type  of  militarism  permeating 

[39] 


"Made  in  Germany3' 

the  entire  social  organism,  including  the  church, 
as  rampant,  malignant  and  demoniacal  as  ever 
prevailed  in  ancient  Rome  or  Sparta. 

(8.)  Listen  to  German  leaders  and  calculate 
the  effect  of  their  words  upon  offensive  arma- 
ments. Treitschke  said,  "Why  talk  of  found- 
ing colonies  ?  Let  us  take  Holland,  then  we  shall 
have  them  ready  made  .  .  .  Germany  with  60,- 
000,000  of  virile  people  should  address  herself 
to  the  downfall  of  England. ' '  Again,  Delbruck 
says,  "Germany  was  bound  to  expand  at  the 
expense  of  England,  France  and  Russia." 
Professor  Oswald  says,  "Germany  should 
crush  England,  break  up  Russia,  and  reduce 
France  to  vassalage."  These  are  not  isolated 
but  representative  declarations  and  accord  per- 
fectly with  the  vast  offensive  armaments  of 
Germany  which  made  war  inevitable. 

Defensive  Distinguished  feom  Offensive  War 

A  nation  must  defend  its  sovereignty,  its  ter- 
ritory, its  citizens,  its  property,  its  sacred 
honor  and  those  rights  and  privileges  upon 
which  these  depend. 

The  aggressor  in  war  is  not  necessarily  the 
nation  that  first  declares  war  or  strikes  the  first 
blow,  but  the  one  that  violates  the  rights  of  an- 
other nation  and  takes  up  arms  in  support  of 
such  violation.  A  violation  of  rights  may  be  so 
indirect,  or  so  complicated  by  circumstances, 
that  the  nature,  extent,  as  well  as  the  fact  itself, 
of  such  violation,  may  be  difficult  to  determine. 

[40] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

In  such  case  or  whenever  the  nations  in  dis- 
agreement cannot  settle  the  dispute  in  a  peace- 
able manner,  the  one  refusing  the  proposal  of 
the  other  to  arbitrate  the  matter  and  resorting 
to  arms,  is  ordinarily  the  aggressor. 

It  is  here  assumed  that  the  standards  of 
right  and  wrong  that  obtain  between  individ- 
uals and  in  civilized  states,  shall  be  the  same 
between  nations.  Unless  we  can  postulate  this, 
we  have  no  foundation  for  international  law; 
unless  this  single  standard  can  be  adopted  as 
a  sure  basis  of  all  international  proceedings, 
war  is  inevitable  and  peace  a  dream.  A  group 
of  nations  under  agreement  to  act  together  in 
case  of  war,  when  such  agreement  is  made 
known,  must  be  regarded  as  a  single  unit  in  the 
matter  of  offensive  or  defensive  war.  That  is, 
the  act  of  one  is  the  act  of  the  group;  a  war 
upon  one  or  by  one  is  a  war  upon  or  by  the 
group  to  which  it  belongs.  If,  however,  the 
terms  of  the  agreement  apply  only  to  defensive 
war,  then  the  aggressor  alone  is  responsible. 

In  the  present  war  Italy  declined  to  act  with 
Germany  and  Austria  because  the  triple  alliance 
was  for  defence  only,  while  Germany  and  Aus- 
tria were  waging  an  offensive  war.  It  is  a  mat- 
ter for  profound  gratitude  that  Italy  refused  to 
join  Germany  and  Austria  in  their  attack  upon 
Belgium.  By  such  refusal  she  escaped  the  odi- 
um of  Germany  and  her  apostate  Chancellor  in 
pronouncing  a  treaty,  the  most  solemn  instru- 
ment known  to  mankind,  to  be  a  mere  ' '  scrap  of 

[41] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

paper,"  a  sentiment  so  abhorrent,  so  ghastly 
in  its  consequences,  that  it  may  well  be  regarded 
by  the  civilized  world  as  a  second  fall  of  man 
in  the  Eden  of  the  twentieth  century.  Belgium 
presents  a  perfect  example  of  a  nation  engaged 
in  defensive  warfare.  Germany  presents  a  per- 
fect example  of  a  nation  engaged  in  offensive 
warfare. 

Increase    of    Offensive    Armaments   by   One 
Nation  Requires  an  Increase  by  All 

Simple  as  this  truth  is,  it  is  denied  or  ignored 
by  ultra-pacifists.  How  can  we  tell  whether 
an  increase  of  armaments  is  for  offensive  war? 
This  should  not  present  a  difficult  problem  for 
diplomacy.  Suppose  all  nations  likely  to  be  at 
war  with  each  other  are  at  peace.  Now  if  one 
nation  makes  the  first  move  to  increase  her  ar- 
maments, beyond  a  proportionate  increase  of 
national  growth,  it  means  in  nine  cases  out  of 
ten  sooner  or  later  an  aggressive  war.  Sup- 
pose in  addition,  this  nation,  through  her  lead- 
ers, openly  avows  her  purpose  of  aggressive 
war,  then  it  is  certain  the  armaments  are  for 
aggression.  Suppose  again,  that  neighboring 
nations  shrinking  from  war  and  the  burden  of 
maintaining  armaments,  request  this  nation  to 
discontinue  her  excessive  increase  of  arma- 
ments, assuring  her  of  their  peaceful  intentions, 
and  she  refuses  their  requests;  this  refusal 
points  to  offensive  war.  Suppose  once  more, 
that  this  nation  refuses  to  join  other  nations  in 

[42] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

the  reduction  of  armaments;  such  refusal 
means  but  one  thing  and  that  is  offensive  war. 
There  are  other  signs  of  the  aggressive  pur- 
pose of  an  increase  of  armaments,  such  as  the 
declarations  of  leading  men,  and  above  all  the 
tone  and  extent  of  militarism  in  the  nation. 

We  yield  to  none  in  aversion  to  war.  We 
have  been  in  the  midst  of  its  indescribable  hor- 
rors and  would  like  to  see  all  armaments  sunk 
in  the  sea,  but  we  are  utterly  unable  to  under- 
stand how  the  nations  can  dispense  with  arma- 
ments, while  one  nation  is  increasing  its  arma- 
ments and  openly  avows  its  intention  of  making 
war  upon  other  nations,  and  reducing  them  to 
subjection,  and  that  her  policy  is  one  of  ''blood 
and  iron,"  of  conquest  and  power. 

This  is  precisely  Germany's  attitude.  She 
has  repeatedly  refused  the  request  of  her  neigh- 
bors for  a  reduction  of  armaments  and  kept  on 
piling  them  up,  until  to-day  she  is  able  to  defend 
half  a  dozen  Germanies  against  attacks  from 
any  source.  Neighboring  nations  must  either 
increase  their  armaments  or  perish  at  the  hands 
of  Germany.  There  is  absolutely  no  alterna- 
tive. Her  leaders  loudly  proclaim  this  policy 
of  conquest  and  the  principles  by  which  alone 
it  can  be  sustained.  "War  is  in  itself  a  good 
thing,"  says  Bernhardi.  "The  state  is  justi- 
fied in  making  conquests."  Weak  nations  have 
not  the  same  right  to  live  as  powerful  and  vig- 
orous nations."  "Might  makes  right."  "Huge 
armaments  are  in  themselves  desirable."    For 

[43] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

a  generation  these  diabolical  sentiments  have 
been  taught  to  the  children  in  German  schools. 
Professor  Oswald  says, (i  Germany  should  crush 
England,  break  up  Russia,  and  reduce  France 
to  vassalage." 

When  these  principles  materalize  in  enor- 
mous armaments  and  declarations  of  war 
against  neighboring  nations,  we  repeat,  the  lat- 
ter must  either  increase  their  armaments  or  per- 
ish. One  leading  writer  says,  "We  are  going 
to  destroy  England  ....  and  we  will  not 
rest  until  we  have  gained  our  object." 

It  avails  nothing  for  German  apologists  and 
their  American  allies  to  say  that  these  views 
do  not  represent  the  German  government,  while 
they  are  being  carried  out  to  the  letter,  in  the 
most  illegal,  cruel  and  inhuman  practices  of  the 
German  troops. 

What  is  the  duty  of  nations  whose  existence 
is  thus  threatened,  especially  when  they  see  the 
most  extensive  preparations  being  made  to 
carry  out  this  threat?  Failure  to  provide  de- 
fensive armaments  would  be  suicide. 

What  would  now  be  the  condition  of  the  allies 
had  they  not  increased  their  armaments  ?  Bel- 
gium is  the  answer.  The  object  of  Germany 
as  stated  by  Professor  Oswald  would  have  been 
realized  and  England  "crushed,"  Russia, 
"broken  up,"  and  France  would  be  a  "vassal" 
at  the  feet  of  Germany.  Their  armaments  at 
this  moment  alone  are  preserving  their  liberties 
and  their  lives. 

[44] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

Suppose  Germany  wins  this  war,  what  of  the 
United  States?  For  years  Germany's  naval 
toast  has  been,  "Der  Tag,"  "To  the  Day," 
which  means  the  day  when  Germany  shall  em- 
bark upon  the  conquest,  not  only  of  England 
and  France,  but  of  the  world.  Her  shibboleth 
is  "World  Power  or  Downfall."  The  Kaiser 
is  God.  His  brother,  Prince  Henry  of  Prussia, 
thus  writes  him:  "I  have  but  one  motive,  a  de- 
sire to  proclaim  to  the  nations  the  gospel  of  your 
majesty's  sacred  person  and  to  preach  it  to 
those  who  will  listen  and  to  those  who  will  not. " 
Listen  to  the  Kaiser  himself :  ' '  The  crown  was 
bestowed  upon  me  by  the  grace  of  God  alone  and 
not  by  the  parliaments  and  meetings  and  de- 
cisions of  the  people."  And  again,  blasphe- 
mously paraphrasing  the  words  of  Christ, 
' '  One  is  your  Master  even  Christ  and  all  ye  are 
brethren, ' '  he  says  ' '  Only  one  is  master  of  this 
country  That  is  I.  Who  opposes  me  I  will 
crush  to  pieces." 

Suppose  this  Kaiser  victorious  over  the 
countries  of  Europe,  and  with  his  Alexandrian 
motto  of  world  conquest,  turns  toward  the 
United  States,  will  our  pacifists  cry  out,  Away 
with  armaments !  Dismantle  your  forts !  Intern 
your  ships ;  Lie  down  and  with  brotherly  love 
let  the  German  juggernaut  roll  over  you,  crush- 
ing out  your  liberties,  your  lives  and  your  re- 
public, the  "last  effort  of  divine  Providence  in 
behalf  of  the  human  race"? 

We  have  built  the  Panama  Canal  at  a  fabu- 

[45] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Ions  cost  with  the  primary  object  of  national 
defence.  As  such  it  is  the  greatest  piece  of  ar- 
mament the  world  has  ever  seen.  We  have  be- 
fore us  a  pamphlet  by  one  of  our  best  men 
decrying  all  armaments  and  saying,  "We  have 
squandered  millions  of  dollars  on  fortifications 
in  the  Philippines  .  .  .  and  we  are  about  to 
squander  other  millions  in  Panama.  .  .  .  Ar- 
maments are  not  guarantees  of  peace ;  they  are 
not  insurance;  they  are  not  instruments  of 
righteousness  or  reason  ....  have  faith  in 
brotherhood.  Believe  in  love."  We  do  be- 
lieve in  love  and  brotherhood  but  what  does  the 
writer  mean?  Would  he  really  have  the  Canal 
filled  up,  or  allow  a  brigand  power  to  rob  us  of 
it  and  take  possession  or  put  it  out  of  commis- 
sion ?  Does  he  regard  the  money  it  has  already 
cost  as  well  as  the  money  it  will  have  cost  for 
protection  as  ' '  squandered  " ?  In  denying  that 
armaments  "guarantee  peace"  does  he  really 
think  that  disarmament  by  the  United  States 
would  "guarantee  peace"  and  "insure"  us 
against  invasion?  Disarmament  by  one  nation 
would  not  only  not  "guarantee  peace"  but 
would  guarantee  war  by  inviting  any  nation 
bent  on  conquest  to  attach  us. 

The  millennium  will  come,  but  it  is  not  at  hand 
nor  even  in  sight.  As  yet  the  nations  are  on  a 
competitive,  military  basis.  Competition  itself 
has  come  to  mean  war.  The  most  military  na- 
tion sets  the  pace  that  the  others  must  follow 
or  perish.     So  long  as  a  single  powerful  nation 

[46] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

is  free  to  multiply  offensive  armaments  and 
make  war,  all  other  nations  will  be  compelled  to 
arm,  weaker  nations  to  ally  themselves  with 
stronger,  and  alliances,  ententes,  balances  of 
power  and  spheres  of  influence  will  be  abso- 
lutely necessary. 

There  is,  however,  one  alternative  to  which 
men  are  hopefully  turning.  This  is  an  inter- 
national tribunal  to  determine  disputes,  enforce 
decisions  and  abolish  all  armaments  except  such 
as  may  be  necessary  for  an  international  police 
force  to  coerce  a  recalcitrant  nation.  This 
method  of  suppressing  evil  accords  with  all  hu- 
man and  divine  laws  and  is  approved  by  the  ex- 
perience of  mankind. 

Material  and  moral  forces  have  now  as  never 
before  reached  a  point  of  development  and  unity 
where  they  combine  to  make  such  a  tribunal 
possible.  To  its  accomplishment  the  United 
States  should  officially  take  the  lead,  bend 
every  energy,  employ  every  agency  and  if  need 
be  appropriate  not  merely  millions  but  billions 
of  dollars. 

Ultra-pacifists  would  object  to  the  use  of 
armaments  by  an  international  police  force  to 
keep  the  world's  peace,  since  they  decry  all 
armaments  upon  which,  in  the  last  analysis, 
such  force  must  rely.  We  cannot  agree  with 
them.  A  policeman  relying  on  brotherhood  or 
love  to  stop  a  thief  or  stay  the  hand  of  a  mur- 
derer would  be  regarded  as  demented. 

When  all  Germany  is  singing,  "The  World 

[47] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

with  Germany  on  Top,"  which  means  with  the 
Kaiser  as  king  and  " blood  and  iron"  as  prime 
ministers,  it  would  be  criminal  folly  for 
the  United  States  to  abolish  her  defensive 
armaments. 

Defensive  armaments  are  not  condemned  in 
the  Scriptures.  Christ  himself  approved  of  de- 
fensive weapons.  He  said,  "I  came  not  to 
bring  peace  but  a  sword,"  that  is,  conflict-war 
between  eternally  hostile  principles.  Christ 
was  the  "Captain"  of  "good  soldiers"  as  well 
as  "Prince  of  Peace."  The  peace  He  promises 
is  not  acquiescence  in  ivickedness  but  victory 
over  it.  That  peace  is  coming,  but  at  present 
the  fight  is  on. 

Whenever  armaments  are  used  for  the  sake 
of  power,  conquest,  revenge  or  the  lust  of 
"blood  and  iron,"  they  are  offensive  arma- 
ments. On  the  other  hand,  when  used  for  the 
protection  of  a  nation's  rights  they  are  defen- 
sive armaments. 

Governments  not  Influenced  by  the  Cost  of 

Armaments 

Arrays  of  figures  showing  the  enormous  cost 
of  armaments  in  the  different  nations  are  start- 
ling. The  last  year  before  the  war  Germany 
spent  $294,000,000,  France  $311,000,000,  Russia 
$440,000,000  and  England  $480,000,000.  All  the 
nations  together,  it  is  estimated,  spent  about 
$3,000,000,000  on  their  armies  and  navies.  The 
withdrawal  of  men  from  productive  labor  is 

[48] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

said  to  have  cost  $3,000,000,000  more,  making 
a  total  of  $6,000,000,000  spent  each  year  on 
armaments.  Counting  at  the  rate  of  sixty  per 
minute,  eight  hours  per  day,  and  three  hun- 
dred and  sixty-five  days  per  year,  it  would  take 
one  man  six  hundred  years  to  count  this  sum. 
This  is  the  cost  on  a  peace  footing. 

"We  are  told  that  Germany  and  Russia  are 
now  spending  $15,000,000  a  day  each,  France 
and  Austria  $10,000,000  each  and  England  at 
the  same  rate,  to  carry  on  the  war.  "We  cannot 
realize  these  figures  nor  is  it  necessary.  No- 
body is  really  influenced  by  them.  No  govern- 
ment gives  them  very  serious  attention. 

The  cost  of  armaments  is  not  a  tithe  of  what 
the  nations  spend  for  luxuries  in  countless 
directions.  The  play-house  and  music  bill,  the 
tobacco  and  liquor  bill  of  any  nation  far  ex- 
ceeds the  cost  of  its  armaments,  although  the 
latter  is  regarded  as  a  thousand  times  more 
important.  If  every  German  laborer  carries  a 
soldier  on  his  back,  he  also  carries  drones  and 
luxury  mongers. 

No,  the  cost  of  armaments,  however  tremen- 
dous, has  scarcely  a  feather's  weight  with  any 
government.  No  matter  how  burdensome  it  may 
be,  or  how  exacting  the  conscription  laws,  or 
how  they  grind  the  people  least  able  to  bear 
the  burden,  the  matter  of  cost  will  never  cause 
the  reduction  of  armaments  so  long  as  nations 
depend  upon  them  for  existence. 

The  real  objection  to  armaments  is  the  ob- 

[49] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

jection  to  war  itself.  Armaments  are  a  symbol 
of  war.  War  means  not  only  cost  in  money, 
but  suffering,  wounds  and  death,  lamentations 
unutterable,  and  woe. 

In  the  social  evolution  a  stage  has  been 
reached  when  needless  human  suffering  will 
not  be  tolerated.  This  is  the  fruit  of  Christian- 
ity. It  has  been  a  long  time  in  coming.  It  is 
due  to  the  new  sense  of  universal  brotherhood 
and  love.  It  has  come  to  stay.  It  recognizes 
war  as  its  arch  enemy.  War  therefore  must 
go.  But  its  one  prop  is  armaments.  Then 
down  with  armaments  of  every  description! 
The  logic  is  imperfect,  but  the  sentiment  is 
divine  and  we  will  work  for  this  consumma- 
tion. Meanwhile  let  us  live  and  not  die.  While 
struggling  toward  the  harbor  let  us  not  scuttle 
the  ship. 

It  is  often  said  that  when  the  nation 's  money 
and  credit  are  exhausted  it  cannot  get  arma- 
ments and  must  stop  fighting.  No  mistake 
could  be  greater.  A  self-supporting  nation  like 
Russia,  for  example,  can  wage  war  indefinitely 
without  money  or  foreign  credit.  Powerful  as 
these  are  they  are  not  indispensable.  A  nation 
may  live  by  exchange  of  goods  or  payment  in 
kind.  It  may  use  any  commodity  as  a  medium 
of  exchange  among  its  own  people.  Nations 
have  lived  thus  in  the  past.  Such  industries 
as  would  sustain  life  and  supply  arms  could  be 
carried  on  without  money.  Money  is  a  con- 
venience not  a  necessity  either  in  peace  or  in 

[50] 


Offensive  and  Defensive  Armaments 

war.  Mexico  and  Turkey  show  how  nations 
may  carry  on  war  long  after  their  money  is 
practically  exhausted.  How  large  should  be  a 
nation's  defensive  armaments?  What  is  pre- 
paredness? That  depends.  Many  factors  enter 
into  the  problem.  The  circumstances  of  each 
nation  are  to  be  considered. 

The  United  States  is  now  anxiously  asking 
this  question.  It  is  not  a  partisan  one.  We 
believe  our  statesmanship  at  Washington  will 
answer  it  wisely,  so  as  to  ensure  our  own  safety 
on  the  one  hand  and  on  the  other,  assure  the 
world  of  our  supreme  love  of  peace  and  eternal 
hatred  of  aggressive  war. 


[51] 


CHAPTER   III 
GERMAN   MILITARISM 

If  militarism  has  heretofore  meant  a  dispo- 
sition to  provide  armaments  for  national  de- 
fence together  with  the  exaltation  of  military- 
affairs,  it  has  been  gradually  acquiring  another 
meaning  more  in  accordance  with  its  essential 
character.  By  militarism  we  now  understand 
the  martial  spirit,  or  the  fighting  propensity 
together  with  the  desire  and  effort  to  supply 
all  the  means  of  gratifying  it.  It  is  essentially 
the  love  of  war,  the  murderous  disposition,  the 
savage  instinct,  the  lust  of  blood. 

All  these  qualities  can  be  veneered  with  civ- 
ilization and  refinement.  They  are  perfectly  at 
home  in  the  drawing  room  and  sit  complacently, 
prayer-book  in  hand,  in  a  partially  paganized 
church. 

Militarism  has  no  desire  to  be  defined  in  this 
manner.  The  Christian  religion,  if  anything, 
is  a  religion  of  brotherly  love.  Militarism  is 
hatred.  Christianity  has  made  such  strides 
within  a  century  and  now  looms  so  large  in 
the  earth,  that  militarism  dares  no  longer  face 
it  and  so  hides  its  hideous  features  under  vari- 
ous masks,  such  as  national  defence,  the  mili- 

[52] 


German  Militarism 

tary  virtues,  preservation  of  peace,  impending 
danger  of  attack  from  a  foreign  power,  etc. 

Germany  is  the  one  exception  to  this  state- 
ment. She  has  the  distinction  of  being  the 
only  nation  that  now  extols  militarism,  not  only 
as  a  virtue  but  as  the  corner  stone  of  her  na- 
tional greatness  and  glory.  This  is  the  cause 
of  the  war. 

Jingoes  in  other  countries  are  comparatively 
few.  In  Germany  militarism  is  an  institution 
of  the  state  and  the  paramount  one.  Germany 
has  been  almost  the  sole  promoter  of  it  in 
Europe.  Eussia  has  always  followed,  never  pre- 
ceded, Germany  in  the  matter  of  armaments. 
Temporizing  writers  seek  to  spread  the  plague 
about  equally  over  the  different  nations,  but  all 
Germany  rebukes  them.  Dr.  Karl  Lamprect  of 
the  university  of  Leipsic  says,  "Our  great 
trump  cards  are  Luther,  Goethe  and  Kant. 
The  Prussian  kings  to  be  sure  were  heroes  .  .  . 
and  have  given  their  country  a  great  doctrine, 
the  doctrine  of  militarism." 

In  view  of  such  admissions  how  can  an  Amer- 
ican write  as  follows  ?  ' '  There  is  as  much  mili- 
tarism in  covering  the  sea  with  dreadnoughts 
as  there  is  in  covering  the  land  with  armies." 
Is  it  true  that  England  is  to  be  thus  ranked 
with  Germany  in  the  matter  of  armaments'? 
Let  us  see. 

(1)  Neither  dreadnoughts  nor  armies  nor 
their  size  necessarily  indicate  militarism.  It 
is  the  spirit  and  purpose  behind  them.    If  they 

[53] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

are  for  defence  only,  the  greatest  armaments 
do  not  imply  the  least  militarism;  if  they  are 
for  offensive  war  they  imply  militarism  alone. 
Behind  England's  dreadnoughts  there  was  a 
desperate  effort  to  keep  the  peace ;  behind  Ger- 
many 's  armies,  a  determined  effort  to  make 
war. 

(2)  England's  insular  position  and  posses- 
sions required  all  her  dreadnoughts  for  defence, 
while  Germany's  armies  are  ten  times  what  are 
needed  for  defence. 

(3)  In  view  of  the  extent  of  England's 
coasts  and  colonies  to  be  protected  as  compared 
with  those  of  Germany,  England  is  not  as  well 
equipped  with  dreadnoughts  as  Germany. 

(4)  England  condemns  militarism  as  devil- 
ish, while  Germany  praises  it  as  divine. 

There  are  militarists  in  every  country  but 
they  are  relatively  a  negligible  quantity,  while 
in  Germany  they  completely  dominate  not  only 
the  government,  but  all  social  institutions.  We 
will  consider  militarism,  therefore,  as  it  is  ex- 
emplified in  Germany,  where  it  has  had  its  most 
perfect  development. 

The  Militarism  of  the  Kaiser 

Caesar  Augustus  changed  the  Roman  Repub- 
lic into  a  monarchy  and  concentrated  all  power 
in  himself.  Kaiser  is  the  German  for  Caesar. 
Caesarism  is  military  despotism.  Caesar,  after 
a  period  of  peace,  suddenly  exclaimed, ' '  Varus, 
give  me  back  my  legions!"     So  the  Kaiser, 

[54] 


German  Militarism 

after  twenty-five  years  of  peace,  every  moment 
of  which  has  been  spent  in  preparing  for  war, 
suddenly  exclaims,  "Bethmann  Hollweg,  give 
me  my  legions;  and  as  for  you  'Barbarous 
Russia,'  I  give  you  twelve  hours  in  which  to 
throw  up  your  hands!"  It  is  not  an  accident 
that  the  Kaiser  is  called  "The  Over  War 
Lord. ' '    Aggressive  war  is  militarism  in  bloom. 

The  Kaiser  glories  in  militarism.  This  war 
was  begun  by  him.  "The  Truth  About  Ger- 
many," by  eleven  representative  Germans  says, 
' '  The  Kaiser  had  the  moral  courage  to  assume 
the  responsibility  of  beginning  the  conflict." 
Again  they  say,  "We  are  bound  to  follow  our 
Kaiser  because  he  symbolizes  and  represents 
the  nation."  Diplomatic  correspondence  pre- 
ceding the  war  shows  conclusively  that  one 
word  from  the  Kaiser  could  have  prevented  it. 
No  one  questions  this. 

The  Kaiser  seriously  insisted  that  the  war  be 
localized ;  that  is,  that  the  fifty  million  elephant, 
Austria,  and  the  five  million  mouse,  Servia,  be 
left  to  fight  it  out  themselves!  Again,  when 
Russia  asks  him  to  restrain  his  ally,  Austria, 
he  artfully  assumes  that  his  "mediatorial  of- 
fices" between  Russia  and  Austria  have  been 
requested,  when  the  fact  was  he  had  been  ad- 
dressed as  one  of  the  contending  parties  him- 
self. His  repeated  references  to  "the  localiza- 
tion of  the  war"  and  to  his  own  "media- 
torial offices "  are  masterpieces  of  diplomatic 
buffoonery. 

[55] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

No  doubt  the  Kaiser's  peace  sentiments  are 
sincere,  but  his  war  sentiments  are  more  sin- 
cere. Psychologically  he  is  a  nondescript.  He 
is  a  sincere  believer  in  contradictory  opposites. 
It  is  a  matter  of  history  that  to  insult  England 
in  the  Boer  war  he  sent  a  message  of  sympathy 
to  Kruger,  and  then  shortly  after,  followed  it 
by  presenting  to  Queen  Victoria  a  plan  for  sub- 
jugating the  Boers.  He  champions  Christian- 
ity, and  then  goes  to  Constantinople,  seeks  out 
the  arch  enemy  of  Christianity,  Abdul  Hamed, 
addresses  him  as  "Dear  Friend,"  looks  into  his 
eyes  lusterless  from  debauchery,  listens  sympa- 
thetically to  his  lying  lips  and  clasps  the 
monster 's  hand  dripping  with  the  blood  of  thou- 
sands of  massacred  Armenians.  In  his  Chris- 
tian zeal  he  makes  a  pious  pilgrimage  to  the 
mosque  of  Damascus  and  places  there  a  gift  on 
which  is  inscribed  his  admiration  of  Saladin, 
Islam's  great  warrior.  One  day  he  says,  "I 
hope  you  will  always  take  delight  in  handling 
the  duelling  blade.  The  real  meaning  of  our 
duels  is  often  misunderstood  by  the  general 
public. ' '  The  next  day  he  says,  "It  is  my  will 
and  pleasure  that  more  vigorous  steps  be  taken 
to  prevent  duels."  Protesting  his  desire  for 
peace,  he  precipitates  this  war  with  Bussia.  He 
has  stoutly  declaimed  against  the  Yellow  race, 
while  now  he  secretly  instigates  the  Sultan  to 
proclaim  a  "Holy  War"  against  his  own  race 
and  religion.  Note  another  exhibition  of  his 
mental   and   moral   deformity:   it   is   officially 

[56] 


German  Militarism 

stated  that  after  kneeling  down  and  praying  be- 
side the  graves  of  many  brave  German  soldiers, 
he  rose  and  exclaimed,  "I  did  not  want  it !  I  did 
not  want  it!"  A  little  later  he  said,  "The 
sword  was  forced  into  my  hands  by  myself, — 
by  the  Germany  that  I  created  by  my  inspira- 
tion. "  When  his  soldiers  were  sent  against 
China,  this  Christian  Emperor  charged  them  to 
take  no  prisoners  and  give  no  quarter.  His 
exact  words  were,  "When  you  encounter  the 
enemy  you  will  defeat  him.  No  quarter  shall 
be  given.  No  prisoners  shall  be  taken.  Let 
all  ivho  fall  into  your  hands  be  at  your 
mercy.' " 

This  is  militarism  with  a  vengeance.  The 
murderous  disposition,  the  lust  of  blood  of  the 
Roman  and  middle  ages,  which,  under  the  be- 
nign influence  of  Christianity,  the  world  had 
so  far  overcome  as  to  feel  that  no  public  ap- 
proval of  them  would  ever  again  pollute  official 
lips,  is  boldly  approved  by  the  Kaiser  and 
enjoined  upon  his  soldiers.  No  other  voice 
however  imperial  has  in  these  latter  days  so 
outraged  the  public  opinion  of  the  world. 

The  most  serious  thing  respecting  these  ut- 
terances of  the  Kaiser  is  his  belief  that  they  are 
inspired  by  God.  Witness  the  following  to  his 
army.  "Remember  that  the  German  people  are 
the  chosen  of  God.  On  me,  as  German  Em- 
peror, the  spirit  of  God  has  descended.  I  am 
his  weapon;  his  sword;  his  Vicegerent.  Woe 
to  the  disobedient.    Death  to  cowards  and  un- 

[57] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

believers!"  In  the  same  tyrannical,  blasphe- 
mous and  brutal  strain  he  charges  his  troops 
in  Poland.  "/  am  Jehovah's  sword.  Woe  and 
death  to  those  who  resist  my  ivill  and  to  all  ivho 
do  not  believe  my  mission.  The  enemies  of  the 
German  people  shall  perish." 

This  militaristic  despot  and  blood-thirsty 
tyrant,  claiming  like  his  prototype,  Caligula, 
divine  authority  and  honors,  is  the  head  of  a 
nation  that  we  have  all  along  supposed  to 
be  civilized  and  Christian,  and  presents  a 
spectacle  incomprehensible  to  the  average 
American. 

A  friend  of  the  writer  was  in  Berlin  in  1905. 
A  great  festival  was  held  at  which  the  Kaiser 
was  present  and  made  an  address.  The  next 
morning  the  papers  reported  the  Kaiser's 
speech  and  the  streets  resounded  with  cries  of 
"Hurrah!  the  day  is  at  hand!  Keep  your 
swords  sharpened  and  be  ready!"  Yes,  Mr. 
Kaiser,  in  the  expressive  language  of  the  peo- 
ple, there  is  some  militarism  here. 

There  is  of  course  a  better  side  to  the  Em- 
peror. He  is  not  all  bad.  After  Satan  had 
been  soundly  berated  at  a  prayer  meeting,  an 
amiable  old  lady  remarked,  "Well,  I  don't  sup- 
pose the  Devil  is  as  bad  as  he  might  be ! "  We 
are  assured  that  the  Kaiser  has  a  frank,  open 
countenance,  a  kindly  disposition  and  other 
attractive  qualities.  This  may  not  be  doubted. 
He  may  have  the  susceptibility  of  Cain,  the 
musical  talent  of  Nero  and  be  the  treasurer  of 

[58] 


German  Militarism 

the  church  like  Judas  Iscariot,  and  still,  by  his 
all-devouring  militarism,  be  the  arch  murderer 
of  the  human  race  and  guilty  of  the  blood  of 
his  fellow  men,  to  a  greater  extent  than  Alex- 
ander, Cassar,  Charlemagne  and  Napoleon  com- 
bined. Be  it  remembered  that  not  only  have 
hecatombs  already  perished,  but  all  Europe  is 
now  trembling  beneath  the  tread  of  thirteen 
million  armed  men  bent  on  slaughtering  each 
other;  and  be  it  further  remembered  that  no 
German  apologist  of  the  war,  of  which  there 
are  hundreds,  not  even  the  Kaiser  himself,  has 
dared  deny  that  he  and  he  alone  could  by  a 
single  word  have  prevented  this  crime,  the  most 
ghastly  save  that  of  Calvary  that  the  earth  has 
witnessed. 

Militarism  in  the  Army 

A  judge  in  passing  sentence  of  death  on  a 
murderer  has  no  desire  to  kill,  but  is  filled  with 
pity.  With  eyes  filled  with  tears  and  voice 
choking  with  emotion,  Chief  Justice  Shaw  of 
Massachusetts  pronounced  sentence  of  death 
upon  Professor  John  C.  Webster.  In  killing 
their  fellow  men  soldiers  unmoved  by  a 
sense  of  pity  and  brotherhood  are  murderers. 
Organized  murder  is  more  dangerous  to 
society  than  private  murder  and  hence  more 
abhorrent,  and  yet  it  is  not  only  excused  but 
applauded. 

In  spite  of  the  hardening  tendencies  of  war, 
multitudes  have  engaged  in  it  not  only  without 

[59] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

malice  but  with  kindly  feeling  toward  the 
enemy.  Such  soldiers  are  actuated  by  a  sense 
of  duty,  by  devotion  to  a  righteous  cause  or 
to  great  principles  more  sacred  to  them  than 
their  own  lives.  Such  was  the  case  in  our  rev- 
olutionary war  and  in  the  war  to  abolish  slavery 
and  save  the  republic. 

At  the  very  antipodes  of  these  sentiments 
stands  the  militarism  of  the  35,000  army  officers 
that  constitute  the  military  oligarchy  of  Ger- 
many. Bismarck,  whose  influence  began  to  be 
felt  about  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  may 
be  called  the  father  of  German  militarism.  He 
was  a  great  man,  if  a  man  can  be  called  great, 
who  at  the  close  of  his  career  mournfully  says, 
"I  have  inaugurated  great  wars.  I  have  been 
the  cause  of  death  to  multitudes  and  of  suffer- 
ing and  misery  to  millions  of  my  fellow  men. ' ' 
Bismarck  admits  that  he  brought  on  the 
Franco-Prussian  war  of  1871  by  changing  the 
famous  Ems  telegram.  "When  he  received  it 
he  was  dining  with  von  Moltke  and  Roon.  He 
read  it  to  them.  They  were  so  dejected  that 
they  ceased  to  eat  and  pushed  their  chairs  back 
from  the  table.  Then  Bismarck,  seeing  their 
dejection,  asked  if  they  were  thoroughly  pre- 
pared for  immediate  invasion  of  France.  He 
well  knew  that  Prussia  had  long  been  anticipat- 
ing and  preparing  for  it.  They  answered, 
"Yes."  Bismarck  then  took  a  pen  and  so  al- 
tered the  telegram  that  he  said  it  would  "act 
like  a  red  flag  to  the  Gallic  bull."    So  magical 

[60] 


German  Militarism 

was  the  effect  upon  von  Moltke  that  raising 
his  glass,  he  said,  "If  I  am  permitted  to  lead 
our  armies  into  France,  the  Devil  may  take  my 
old  carcass  afterwards  and  do  what  he  wishes 
with  it."  Roon,  equally  elated,  exclaimed, 
1 '  Our  God  will  not  desert  us ! ' '  Murder,  slaugh- 
ter, the  blood  of  their  fellow  men,  were  thus  the 
supreme  longing  of  von  Moltke,  and  Roon 
invoked  God's  blessing  upon  the  butchery. 

No  one  now  doubts  that  the  Franco-Prussian 
war  was  made  in  Germany.  Bismarck  admits 
that  he  altered  the  Ems  telegram.  It  was 
forgery  and  the  most  damnable  recorded  in 
history.  Bismarck  was  proud  of  the  perfidious 
act.  He  presents  to  us  the  perfect  type  of 
German  militarism. 

"Within  four  years  after  the  conclusion  of  the 
war,  France  had  paid  the  enormous  indemnity 
of  one  billion  dollars  imposed  by  Bismarck,  and 
wonderfully  restored  her  commerce  and  pros- 
perity. Upon  this  Bismarck  prepared  to  attack 
her  again  with  the  brutal  remark  that  "This 
time  we  will  bleed  her  white." 

Von  Moltke  was  Bismarck's  spokesman.  He 
had  the  fighting  propensity,  the  lust  of  blood. 
His  whole  life  was  spent  in  killing  and  devising 
means  to  kill.  At  first  the  Kurds  in  Egypt 
were  his  victims;  then  the  Danes  and  after- 
wards the  French  and  Austrians.  After  every 
great  slaughter  he  received  fresh  laurels  from 
his  murderous  countrymen  and  was  going 
higher    and    higher    when    suddenly    he    was 

[61] 


"Made  in  Germany' 

claimed  by  his  Satanic  Majesty  to  whom  he  had 
consigned  his  "Old  Carcass"  when  once  he  had 
drunk  the  blood  of  Frenchmen.  Berlin,  even 
with  its  shocking  glorification  of  war,  is  dis- 
graced by  a  monument  surmounted  with  a 
life-sized  figure  of  this  barbarous  German 
butcher. 

The  "Zabern  incident"  illustrates  the  inso- 
lent and  cruel  spirit  of  militarism  in  the  Ger- 
man army. 

At  the  end  of  the  Franco-Prussian  war,  the 
treaty  of  Frankfort,  May  10,  1871,  tore  the 
province  of  Alsace-Lorraine  from  France  and 
annexed  it  to  Germany.  After  forty  years  of 
separation  the  great  majority  of  the  people 
still  love  France  and  long  to  return  to  her  gov- 
ernment. They  have  been  exasperated  at  the 
harsh  and  oppressive  rule  of  the  Germans  and 
especially  at  the  intolerable  insolence  and  in- 
sults of  the  German  soldiers. 

Zabern  is  a  manufacturing  town  of  10,000 
people  and  is  twenty  miles  from  the  French 
line.  In  October,  1913,  the  German  garrison 
was  under  the  command  of  Col.  von  Reuter. 
A  twenty-year  old  lieutenant,  von  Forstner, 
insulted  the  French  flag  and  said  the  French 
foreign  legion  was  "Good  enough  for  German 
deserters."  He  called  the  Alsatians  "Wackes," 
a  most  opprobrious  name,  and  ' l  offered  two  dol- 
lars and  fifty  cents  to  every  German  soldier 
who  would  run  his  bayonet  through  any  civilian 
who  insulted  him."    His  conduct  created  great 

[62J 


German  Militarism 

excitement.  Women  and  children  came  out  to 
see  what  he  was  like  and  pointed  at  him.  Did 
Col.  von  Reuter  reprimand  this  lieutenant?  On 
the  contrary  he  told  him  to  use  his  sword  the 
next  time  he  was  insulted  and  failing  this  he 
would  be  court-martialed.  The  town  was  now 
so  stirred  up  that  Col.  von  Reuter,  in  order 
to  get  all  power  into  his  own  hands,  and  against 
the  protest  of  Herr  Mahl,  the  sub-prefect  of 
Zabern,  proclaimed  martial  law.  He  at  once 
arrested  twenty  innocent  citizens.  The  resent- 
ment increased. 

On  November  26,  Lieutenant  Schad,  while 
intoxicated,  at  the  head  of  a  few  soldiers, 
charged  on  a  group  of  children  and  arrested 
a  number  of  citizens  who  happened  to  be  pass- 
ing ;  the  charge  against  one  being  that  he  hissed 
at  the  army  when  the  fact  was  he  was  merely 
whistling. 

On  November  28,  some  school  boys  jeered  at 
a  squad  of  soldiers  who  then  charged  upon  the 
boys.  The  boys  got  away,  but  the  soldiers 
arrested  everybody  in  sight,  including  a  fire- 
man who  had  rushed  to  the  door  at  the  noise. 
Twenty-seven  persons  innocent  of  any  offence 
were  imprisoned  over  night  in  a  cold  basement. 
The  sub-prefect  again  protested  to  the  Colonel 
that  he  was  exceeding  his  authority. 

On  December  2,  Lieutenant  von  Forstner  was 
jeered  at  by  some  children.  He  ordered  his 
men  to  seize  them  but  they  caught  only  a  lame 
cobbler.     Lieutenant  von  Forstner   drew  his 

[63] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

sword  and  struck  the  poor  cobbler  over  the 
head,  cutting  a  gash  five  inches  long. 

The  uproar  was  now  so  great  that  the  noise 
reached  the  Reichstag.  A  vote  of  censure  by 
two  hundred  and  ninety-three  to  fifty-four  was 
passed  against  the  officers  at  Zabern.  Officers 
Reuter  and  Schad  were  tried  and  acquitted. 
Lientenant  von  Forstner  was  sentenced  to 
forty-three  days  imprisonment.  On  appeal  this 
sentence  was  promptly  revoked  on  the  ground 
that  he  had  not  sharpened  his  sword  before 
he  slashed  the  cobbler's  head!  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  act  of  the  Reichstag  had  not  a 
feather's  weight  with  the  military  oligarchy. 
The  Crown  Prince  congratulated  the  brutal 
officer. 

This  is  the  "Zabern  incident."  It  illustrates 
the  character  of  German  militarism  and  the 
feeling  of  the  German  officers  toward  the  civil- 
ians. It  kindled  a  flame  of  indignation  through- 
out Alsace-Lorraine  and  France. 

To  show  that  the  incident  was  not  exceptional 
in  character  but  representative,  we  will  add  that 
Rosa  Luxemberg,  immediately  after  the  occur- 
rence, declared  in  print  that  cruelties  commit- 
ted by  the  officers  occurred  daily.  For  this  she 
was  prosecuted  by  the  government.  Thereupon 
the  socialists  presented  thirty-two  thousand  cer- 
tified cases  of  recent  acts  of  cruelty  and  over 
one  thousand  witnesses. 

The  refusal  of  Germany  to  reduce  armaments 
when  requested  by  the  nations  now  associated 

[64  J 


German  Militarism 

as  Allies  shows  Germany's  responsibility  for 
modern  militarism.  Militarism  finds  expres- 
sion in  organized  and  legalized  murder  by  means 
of  armaments.  Armaments,  however,  designed 
solely  for  defence  have  not  the  slightest  mili- 
tarism behind  them.  Such  was  the  case  with 
Belgium.  Certain  writers  tell  us  that  by  main- 
taining armaments  all  the  warring  nations  dis- 
play militarism  and  are  responsible  for  the 
war.  The  plausible  phrase  is,  "We  will  not 
undertake  to  distribute  the  blame;  all  are 
guilty."  Nothing  could  be  more  unjust  or 
contrary  to  the  facts. 

Imagine  a  judge  saying,  because  a  man  used 
weapons  to  fight  off  a  burglar,  "We  will  not 
undertake  to  distribute  the  blame  in  this  case, 
as  both  parties  were  engaged  in  fighting!" 
Germany  alone  with  her  cat's-paw,  Austria,  is 
responsible  for  this  war.  Germany  alone  was 
the  aggressor.  She  alone  was  fully  prepared 
for  it.  She  alone  began  it  while  all  the  Allies 
were  pleading  with  her  to  keep  the  peace. 
What  is  her  object?  Leading  Germans  answer, 
"First  Paris  then  London,"  then  Petrograd, 
then  Eome,  then  Constantinople,  then  Washing- 
ton. Foolish !  Not  to  Germany.  For  years  the 
toast  in  her  navy  has  been  "Der  Tag,"  to  The 
Day,  when  she  enters  upon  the  conquest  of  the 
world.  Absurd?  Not  to  Germany.  Her  fore- 
most men  do  not  deny  it.  Moreover,  they  as- 
sure us,  that  when  Germany  embarks,  as  she 
has  now  done,  upon  the  conquest  of  the  world, 

[65] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

it  will  be  on  her  part  a  strictly  defensive  war ! 
Thus  the  end  of  the  world  for  veracity  and 
common  sense  would  seem  to  have  come  for 
Germany. 

Turn  now  to  the  Allies.  Their  armaments 
do  not  indicate  the  slightest  militarism.  The 
armaments  of  Germany  indicate  nothing  but 
militarism.  If  Germany  or  any  other  powerful 
nation  increased  its  armaments  with  the  avowed 
purpose  of  conquest,  other  nations  were  com- 
pelled, however  reluctantly,  to  follow  suit.  This 
is  precisely  what  has  happened.  Germany  has 
forced  other  nations  to  build  up  great  arma- 
ments in  self-defence.  Take  a  late  example. 
In  the  Spring  of  1913,  Germany  increased  her 
standing  army  by  about  700,000  men.  What 
for?  Nobody  had  injured  Germany  or  threat- 
ened her.  France  looked  upon  this  as  a  direct 
menace  to  her  republic,  and  the  world  now  sees 
that  France  was  right.  Can  any  one  blame 
France,  when,  two  months  later,  she  increased 
the  time  of  military  service  from  two  to  three 
years,  thus  increasing  the  size  of  her  army  to 
meet  that  of  Germany?  How  did  Germany 
regard  this?  She  denounced  it  as  "a  provo- 
cation that  ought  not  to  be  endured. ' ' 

Germany  has  repeatedly  refused  the  request 
of  all  the  Allies  for  a  reduction  of  armaments. 

On  February  2,  1870,  France  asked  Germany 
for  a  simultaneous  reduction  of  armaments. 
She  made  the  request  through  Lord  Clarendon, 
British  Foreign  Secretary,  who  wrote  Germany 

[66] 


German  Militarism 

as  follows:  "It  is  in  the  general  interests  of 
Europe,  of  peace  and  of  humanity,  that  I  desire 
to  invite  the  attention  of  Count  Bismarck  to 
the  enormous  standing  armies  that  now  afflict 
Europe — a  state  of  things  that  now  withdraws 
millions  of  hands  from  productive  industry  and 
heavily  taxes  the  people  .  .  .  that  no  thought- 
ful man  can  contemplate  without  sorrow  and 
alarm,  for  this  system  is  cruel,  it  is  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  civilization  of  our  age,  and  it  is 
pregnant  with  danger." 

How  did  Germany  receive  this  overture? 
Without  a  moment's  hesitation,  Bismarck  re- 
jected the  proposal.  It  was  really  the  proposal 
of  England  as  well  as  of  France. 

Sir  Edward  Cook  in  "How  Britain  Strove 
for  Peace, ' '  tells  of  her  efforts  to  allay  German 
militarism  as  follows.  In  1895,  England  sought 
an  alliance  with  Germany.  "The  Salisbury 
cabinet  was  returned  to  power  and  showed  a 
marked  desire  for  a  rapprochement  with  Ger- 
many. The  stumbling-block  was  the  new  ambi- 
tion of  William  II  to  grasp  the  trident. ' '  Any 
entente  between  Germany  and  England  would 
have  tended  to  allay  German  militarism  by  a 
reduction  of  naval  armaments  which  laid  a 
tremendous  tax  upon  both  nations. 

Again  in  1911,  Herr  von  Rath,  Councillor  of 
Legation,  wrote  as  follows:  "To-day  it  cannot 
be  denied  that  England  strove  in  the  first  in- 
stance for  a  political  rapprochement  with  Ger- 
many and  that  Edward  VII  pursued  this  policy 

[67] 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

as  soon  as  he  came  to  the  throne."  These 
failed,  says  Sir  Valentine  Chirol,  because  Ger- 
many demanded  an  alliance  to  break  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  to  which  England  would  not 
consent. 

In  1898  Russia  proposed  to  Germany  and 
England  a  naval  reduction.  Germany  again 
not  only  refused  but  increased  her  navy. 

In  1906  Great  Britain  proposed  a  naval  re- 
duction but  Germany  refused  to  consider  it. 

Again  in  1907,  Sir  Campbell-Bannerman, 
British  Prime  Minister,  appealed  to  Germany 
for  a  naval  reduction.  The  appeal  was  met  by 
the  refusal  of  Germany  even  to  take  part  in 
a  general  discussion. 

Once  more  in  1908,  Edward  VII  visited  the 
Kaiser  and  tried  to  make  an  Anglo-German 
agreement  to  reduce  naval  armaments.  Again 
Germanv  refused.  Four  observations  are  now 
in  order: — 

(1)  All  the  Allies  have  striven  for  a  series 
of  years  for  an  alliance  with  Germany  to  allay 
her  militarism,  by  a  naval  reduction. 

(2)  Germany  has  refused  every  such  over- 
ture. She  has  not  only  made  no  proposal  her- 
self, but  has  refused  even  to  take  part  in  a 
general  discussion  of  the  subject. 

(3)  The  Allies  at  length  clearly  understood 
the  position  of  Germany,  viz:  that  she  gloried 
in  that  execrable  thing  called  militarism 
and  was  only  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to 
display  it. 

[68] 


German  Militarism 

(4)  That  man  who  says  of  the  warring  na- 
tions, "One  is  just  as  guilty  of  militarism  as 
another,"  or,  "We  cannot  distribute  the  blame 
for  this  war,"  or,  "All  alike  have  trusted 
to  armaments  to  keep  the  peace,"  is  either 
ignorant  of  the  facts  or  an  apologist  for 
crime. 

The  truth  is,  no  nation  has  trusted  to  arma- 
ments to  keep  the  peace.  On  the  contrary  Ger- 
many has  trusted  to  armaments  to  make  war, 
while  the  Allies  have  trusted  to  them  as  a  means 
of  preserving  their  existence. 

The  essential  nature  of  militarism  is  illus- 
trated in  the  treatment  of  the  Hereros  of  South 
Africa  by  the  Germans.  A  government  expert 
on  colonization  was  recently  called  upon  to 
instruct  the  Reichstag.  He  said,  "The  Hereros 
must  be  compelled  to  work,  and  to  work  with- 
out compensation  and  in  return  for  their  food 
only.  Forced  labor  for  years  is  only  a  just 
punishment,  and  at  the  same  time  it  is  the  best 
method  of  training  them.  The  feelings  of 
Christianity  and  philanthropy,  with  which  the 
missionary  works,  must  for  the  present  be  re- 
pudiated with  all  energy." 

Ten  years  ago  General  von  Trotha,  the  Ger- 
man Governor,  issued  a  proclamation  as  fol- 
lows : — "The  Herero  people  must  now  leave  the 
land.  If  it  refuses  I  shall  compel  it  with  the 
gun.  "Within  the  German  frontier  every  Herero 
with  or  without  weapon,  with  or  without  cattle, 
will  be  shot.    I  shall  take  charge  of  no  more 

[69] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

women  and  children,  but  shall  drive  them  back 
to  their  people  or  let  them  be  shot. ' ' 

The  result  of  this  brutal  order,  says  Dr.  W. 
H.  Griffith  Thomas,  was  that  "many  thousands 
of  them  were  slain,  and  thousands  more  were 
driven  into  the  desert,  where  they  perished  of 
hunger  and  thirst.  And  yet  they  are  described 
by  a  reputable  writer  as  intelligent,  vigorous, 
industrious,  alert  and  adaptable." 

Poland  has  experienced  much  the  same  cruel 
and  inhuman  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the 
Germans.  It  is  true  that  other  nations,  espe- 
cially Russia,  have  been  guilty,  but  for  the  most 
part  the  cases  are  few  and  exceptional,  whereas 
it  is  the  cumulative  aspect  of  the  brutal  qual- 
ities of  German  militarism  that  gives  it  its 
ghastly  distinction. 

Another  feature  of  German  militarism  now 
commands  the  indignant  attention  of  the  civil- 
ized world.  It  is  the  reversion  to  barbarous 
methods  of  warfare. 

Once,  long  ago,  prisoners  of  war  were  killed 
or  enslaved,  women  and  children  outraged  and 
slaughtered,  civilians  put  to  death,  private 
property  confiscated  or  destroyed,  and  towns 
and  cities  reduced  to  ashes. 

Gradually  certain  rules  of  warfare  mitigat- 
ing its  horrors  were  adopted  by  all  civilized 
nations.  Prisoners  were  spared  and  exchanged, 
women  and  children  were  protected,  notice 
to  non-combatants  to  leave  preceded  the  bom- 
bardment    of     towns     and     cities,     civilians 

[70] 


German  Militarism 

were  unmolested  and  private  property  was 
respected. 

These  humane  conditions  indicate  a  mighty 
triumph  of  Christian  civilization;  not  indeed 
the  final  goal  which  is  the  abolition  of  war,  but 
vast  strides  in  that  direction. 

But  now  comes  Germany  like  a  monstrous 
dragon  with  crested  head,  scaly  armor  and  ter- 
rible claws,  and  wantonly  tramples  upon 
these  merciful  conditions  and  boldly  reverts 
to  the  cruel  practices  of  the  barbarian  and  the 
savage. 

Among  these  practices  of  constant  recurrence 
thus  far  in  the  war  are  the  killing  of  civilians, 
burning  and  sacking  of  towns  and  cities,  or 
assessing  enormous  sums  of  money  upon  them 
and  demanding  hostages  in  pledge  of  payment, 
bombardment  of  unfortified  places,  dropping  of 
bombs  from  air  craft  and  strewing  floating 
mines  upon  the  open  sea. 

Killing,  Burning  and  Plundering 

An  illustration  of  German  relapse  to  bar- 
barism is  seen  in  their  treatment  of  captured 
towns  and  cities.  They  have  made  a  charnel 
house  of  Belgium.  Churches,  schools,  houses 
and  hospitals  are  in  ruins.  Entire  villages  are 
wiped  out.  In  Louvain  one-third  of  all  the 
buildings  are  destroyed;  among  them  1,074 
dwellings.  In  the  suburbs  1,823  houses  are 
burned.  Cathedrals  and  works  of  art  of  price- 
less value  are  destroyed.    The  Bheims  Cathe- 

[71] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

dral  was  not  spared.  This  monument  of  medi- 
aeval faith  and  art,  of  surpassing  beauty  and 
grandeur,  held  sacred  by  all  the  world,  was 
laid  in  partial  ruins  by  the  invaders. 

"In  the  Louvain  group  of  communes  one 
hundred  and  seventy-six  persons,  men  and 
women,  old  men  and  sucklings,  rich  and  poor, 
in  health  and  sickness,  were  shot  or  burned." 
The  case  of  Louvain  illustrates  that  of  many 
other  places.  This  is  not  war  since  the  foe 
had  been  vanquished.  It  is  butchery,  and  the 
blood  of  the  slain  calls  aloud  from  the  ground 
to  the  God  of  justice. 

The  denial  of  these  acts  of  savagery  only 
adds  lying  to  cruelty.  They  accord  perfectly 
with  the  type  of  militarism  of  which  Germany 
boasts. 

Major-General  von  Disfurth  writes,  "We  are 
and  must  be  barbarians.  For  my  part  I  hope 
that  in  this  war  we  have  merited  the  title  of 
barbarians." 

Before  showing  how  this  "hope"  is  being 
realized,  let  us  say  that  we  do  not  overlook  the 
kind-hearted,  peace-loving  disposition  of  the 
great  mass  of  the  German  people.  We  admit 
the  admirable  qualities  of  the  Kaiser  and  the 
sincerity  of  many  German  apologists,  and  we 
dismiss,  as  not  proved,  the  charges  and  counter 
charges  by  Germans  and  Belgians  of  certain 
atrocities,  such  as  the  cutting  off  the  ears  and 
noses  and  putting  out  the  eyes  of  the  wounded ; 
but  all  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  spirit 

[72] 


German  Militarism 

and  practice  of  the  brutal  militarism  of  the 
army  and  the  military  oligarchy  in  absolute 
control  of  the  treatment  of  captured  cities. 

We  have  before  us  copies  of  proclamation 
after  proclamation,  issued  by  the  Germans  in 
Belgium,  giving  the  exact  words,  dates  and 
official  signatures.  One  of  them  posted  in  Has- 
selt  on  August  17,  1914,  says,  "In  cases  of 
civilians  shooting  on  the  German  army,  a  third 
of  the  male  population  will  be  shot ' ' :  that  is, 
for  the  action  of  a  half-crazed  man  trying  to 
protect  his  home  and  for  which  the  people 
are  in  no  way  responsible,  one-third  of  the 
men  and  boys  of  the  city  will  be  summarily 
shot!  This  not  only  violates  the  laws  of  war, 
but  is  expressly  forbidden  by  the  Hague 
convention. 

A  few  patriotic  Belgians  tried  to  defend  their 
homes  in  Ardenne.  Listen  now  to  General  von 
Buelow,  commander.  ' '  It  was  with  my  consent 
that  the  General  had  the  whole  place  burned 
and  about  one  hundred  shot."  The  inhabitants 
say  that  more  than  two  hundred  were  shot, 
while  four  hundred  have  mysteriously  disap- 
peared, and  all  the  houses  were  burned  down 
for  a  distance  of  more  than  eight  miles  beyond 
the  town. 

At  Namur  on  August  25,  a  proclamation  was 
posted  which  said,  "  Every  street  will  be  occu- 
pied by  a  German  guard  who  will  take  ten 
hostages  for  each  street.  If  there  is  any  rising 
the  hostages  will  be  shot." 

[73] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

On  August  27,  General  von  Buelow  imposed 
upon  the  town  of  Wavre  $600,000  and  said, 
"The  town  of  Wavre  will  be  set  on  fire 
and  destroyed  if  payment  is  not  made  when 
due." 

These  are  samples  of  proclamations  posted 
in  many  places.  They  are  plain  historical  facts 
which  any  one  can  verify.  They  are  so  contrary 
to  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  so  cruel,  blood- 
thirsty and  devilish,  that  all  Christendom  and 
all  decent  heathendom  should  hang  their  heads 
in  speechless  shame  and  indignation.  Thus  the 
militarism  of  the  German  army  converts  it 
into  "A  horde  of  barbarians  and  a  band  of 
incendiaries." 

Leading  Germans  say  that  Belgian  civilians 
fired  on  and  otherwise  assaulted  German  troops 
and  the  severe  measures  of  the  latter  were  only 
in  self-defence.  Three  things  are  to  be  said  in 
answer : — 

(1)  The  Hague  convention  says,  Captured 
towns  and  cities  shall  not  be  punished  or  held 
responsible  for  the  acts  of  private  citizens 
toward  their  captors. 

(2)  "German  law  expressly  requires  Ger- 
man civilians  to  attach  and  harass  an  invader 
by  every  form  of  night  and  secret  attack." 
How  then  can  it  be  a  crime  for  Belgian  civilians 
to  treat  invaders  exactly  as  Germany  com- 
mands her  citizens  to  treat  invaders?  On 
what  ground  can  Bernstorf,  Dernberg  and 
Co.    justify    these    outrages    by    saying    that 

[74] 


German  Militarism 

"The  Belgians  got  only  what  they  de- 
served?" "Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I 
judge  thee. ' ' 

(3)  Belgian  civilians  did  not  fire  on  the 
invaders.  Even  should  there  be  an  exception, 
the  charge  in  general  is  false.  Repeatedly  has 
Germany  declared  its  war  policy  to  be,  to  loot, 
to  burn,  to  murder.  "Every  act  of  whatever 
nature  committed  by  our  troops  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discouraging ,  defeating  and  destroy- 
ing our  enemies  is  a  brave  act  and  a  good 
deed/' 

So  speaks  Major  General  von  Disfurth. 
So  speak,  only  a  hundredfold  louder,  the 
many  authenticated  acts  of  the  German 
army. 

Bombardment  of  Unfortified  Places 

The  disregard  of  recognized  rules  of  war  is 
shown  by  the  German  navy  in  the  bombard- 
ment of  unfortified  towns  and  cities. 

The  Hague  convention  says,  "The  bombard- 
ment by  naval  forces  of  undefended  ports, 
towns,  villages,  dwellings  or  buildings  is  for- 
bidden." In  all  cases  previous  notice  should 
be  given  that  civilians  may  escape  from  the 
danger  zone. 

In  spite  of  the  Hague  convention  a  German 
squadron  on  December  16,  1914,  made  a  raid 
on  the  English  coast  towns  of  Scarborough, 
Whitby  and  Hartlepool.  The  latter  is  a  com- 
mercial port  with  light  defences  and  may  be 

[75] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

legitimately  attacked,  but  Scarborough  and 
Whitby  are  seaside  resorts  without  defence. 
The  Germans  stealing  up  in  a  dense  fog  and 
without  a  moment's  notice  rained  upon  the 
inhabitants  their  death-dealing  missiles.  One 
hundred  persons,  mostly  civilians,  were  killed 
and  three  hundred  wounded.  Of  the  killed 
seventy-seven  were  in  Hartlepool,  seventeen  in 
Scarborough  and  fourteen  in  Whitby.  Among 
the  wounded  were  many  women  and  children. 
One  infant  of  four  months  had  its  skull  broken 
while  in  its  mother's  arms.  Germany  was  fran- 
tic with  delight  at  this  fiendish  exploit  against 
defenceless  towns.  She  regarded  it  as  a  great 
naval  achievement  and  applauded  these  slayers 
of  women  and  babies  as  ' '  Heroes. ' ' 

Bombardment  feom  the  Air 

The  same  rule  applies  to  Zeppelins  and  aero- 
planes as  to  warships.  It  matters  not  whether 
the  bombardment  is  from  the  water  or  the  air. 
Unfortified  places  are  exempt  and  if  fortified, 
civilians  are  entitled  to  notice.  This  novel 
mode  of  warfare  seems  to  be  regarded  as  legit- 
imate. Bombs  may  be  dropped  upon  the 
enemy's  troops,  forts,  arsenals,  warships  and 
all  other  armaments,  but  not  upon  unfortified 
towns  and  non-combatants.  This  is  forbidden 
by  the  rules  of  war  and  the  common  conscience 
of  mankind. 

In  defiance  of  these  rules  the  Germans  have 
dropped  bombs  upon  many  unfortified  towns 

[76] 


German  Militarism 

and  cities  and  killed  and  wounded  hundreds  of 
men,  women  and  children.  A  single  attack  of 
these  raiding  air  craft  illustrates  their  general 
character.  On  January  19,  1915,  the  Germans 
made  an  aerial  raid  upon  England,  attacking 
Yarmouth,  Cromer  and  other  towns.  They 
came  in  the  night  and  the  darkness  was  so  thick 
that  but  few  saw  them.  The  royal  residence 
at  Sandringham  was  specially  marked  for  de- 
struction. In  Yarmouth  several  workingmen's 
homes  were  destroyed  as  also  other  buildings. 
Three  harmless  non-combatants  were  killed  and 
others  wounded.  On  another  occasion  Zeppe- 
lins on  a  still  night  dropped  a  few  bombs  into 
the  streets  of  Antwerp  and  killed  perhaps 
twenty  inoffensive  men,  women  and  children. 

This  is  not  the  act  of  civilized  warfare.  It 
is  the  act  of  barbarians.  No  enemy  is  put  hors 
de  combat.  No  military  advantage  is  gained. 
Indeed  this  is  not  the  object.  The  object  is  to 
destroy,  terrify  and  murder.  It  is  prompted 
by  hatred,  revenge  and  lust  of  blood.  It  is  not 
a  military  proceeding  and  the  perpetrators  if 
caught  should  not  be  treated  as  prisoners  of 
war,  but  as  private  individuals  guilty  of  murder 
in  the  first  degree. 

Floating  Mines 

There  is  something  paralyzing  in  a  sea  fight 
between  great  war  vessels.  The  weapons  are 
so  monstrous,  the  fight  so  terrific  and  the  con- 
sequences so  appalling,  that  we  shudder  as  we 

[77] 


"Made  in  Germany' 

contemplate  it.  And  when  the  great  ship  re- 
ceives its  mortal  wound  and  takes  its  final 
plunge  into  unknown  depths,  carrying  with  it 
hundreds  of  brave  men,  we  stand  aghast  with 
horror.  This,  however,  is  legitimate  warfare. 
A  floating  mine  is  not  a  legitimate  weapon.  It 
is  a  device  of  Satan.  We  are  not  speaking  of 
mines  sunk  in  a  harbor  to  protect  a  city  and 
which  are  controlled  from  the  shore  and  are 
designed  solely  for  defence ;  we  speak  of  those 
mines  floating  broadcast,  and  contact  with 
which  means  instant  death  and  destruction  to 
men  and  vessels,  not  of  an  enemy  only  but  of 
neutral  nations.  The  latter 's  vessels  sailing 
the  open  seas  where  they  have  a  right  to  sail, 
carrying  cargoes  which  they  have  a  right  to 
carry,  engaged  in  necessary  and  peaceable  com- 
merce, are  suddenly  and  without  an  instant's 
notice  torn  asunder  and  sunk  in  the  sea.  Al- 
ready Sweden  has  lost  eight  ships  and  with 
them  sixty  lives  .  .  .  Denmark  has  lost  six 
ships  and  six  lives,  Holland  three  vessels  and 
fifteen  lives.  The  loss  of  property  in  these 
disasters  has  been  ten  million  dollars.  The 
losses  of  Great  Britain  in  men  and  property 
greatly  exceeds  the  total  of  these  neutral  na- 
tions above  mentioned.  A  great  passenger 
steamer  from  the  United  States  grazed  a  mine 
off  the  coast  of  Ireland  and  barely  escaped 
going  to  the  bottom. 

The  strewing  of  these  mines  is  a  dastardly 
crime  against  humanity,  no  matter  by  what 

[78] 


German  Militarism 

nation  it  is  clone.  The  man  or  nation  found 
guilty  of  it  should  suffer  the  severest  penalty 
that  can  be  inflicted. 

Militarism    in    German     Schools    and    Uni- 
versities 

We  have  defined  militarism  as  the  fighting 
propensity,  the  murderous  disposition.  These 
qualities  being  no  longer  in  good  repute  are 
masked  under  such  virtues  as  bravery,  heroism 
and  patriotism. 

For  a  generation  militarism  has  been  taught 
the  children  and  students  of  Germany  under 
the  guise  of  these  virtues  and  especially  under 
the  guise  of  loyalty  to  the  Kaiser.  They  have 
been  taught  to  believe  that  other  nations  were 
so  envious  of  German  prosperity,  that  they 
were  preparing  to  invade  their  country  and 
lay  it  in  ruins;  that  the  time  was  at  hand 
when  hordes  of  "Russian  barbarians,  frivolous 
Frenchmen  and  perfidious  Englishmen"  would 
swoop  down  upon  Germany,  devour  its  sub- 
stance, burn  its  towns  and  villages,  devastate 
its  fields  and  kill  its  inhabitants.  One  thing 
and  one  thing  alone  could  save  their  country; 
that  was  the  sword. 

The  effect  of  such  teachings  upon  the  plastic 
minds  of  youth  can  be  imagined.  "War  was  the 
thing  to  look  forward  to.  War  was  ordained 
of  God  and  the  Kaiser.  Children  must  love 
it.  They  must  learn  how  to  hate  their  enemies 
and  kill  them.     Now  for  the  irony  of  it  all! 

[79] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

No  such  envy  of  Germany  existed  among  the 
nations.  No  nation  was  preparing  to  attack 
Germany.  No  threats  were  made  from  any 
source.  No  invader  was  on  her  frontiers  or 
desired  to  be.  It  was  all  an  unmitigated  false- 
hood, a  cunning  device  of  militarism,  for  mili- 
tarism and  by  militarism.  It  let  loose  in  the 
minds  of  youth  the  base  passions  of  hatred, 
malice  and  murder  that  are  the  elements  of 
militarism,  but  which,  by  skillful  manipulation, 
can  assume  the  form  of  pure  patriotism. 

Some  years  ago  an  American  educator  was 
visiting  the  schools  in  Germany.  He  was  sur- 
prised to  find  that  in  the  study  of  geography, 
the  pupils  were  required  to  locate  the  important 
forts  on  the  frontiers  of  Germany.  They  were 
required  "to  tell  the  exact  value  of  these  forts 
from  a  strategic  and  military  point  of  view. ' ' 

The  pamphlet, ' '  The  Truth  About  Germany, ' ' 
by  Professors  Harnack,  Wundt,  Lamprecht  and 
others  says,  "We  have  been  forced  to  become 
a  nation  of  soldiers  in  order  to  be  free."  The 
Germans  "have  been  brought  up  under  the 
shadow  of  the  feeling  that  revengeful  neigh- 
bors were  waiting  for  the  hour  to  burn  their 
villages  and  their  towns."  "This  dread  every 
German  has  known  from  his  childhood  days." 
"Professor  Munsterberg  testifies  that  his  con- 
scious life  began  with  a  vivid  image  of  Hussars 
returning  from  the  Austro-Prussian  war,  that 
his  first  writing  was  a  childish  poem  about  war, 
and  that  when  he  was  a  student  at  Heidel- 

[80] 


German  Militarism 

berg  there  was  no  other  talk,  'but  the  war 
which  the  French  restlessness  would  force  upon 
us.'  " 

An  Englishman  investigating  German  educa- 
tional methods,  asked  a  bright  boy  what  he 
would  like  to  do  when  he  grew  up.  The  boy's 
hand  flew  to  his  head  in  military  salute  as  he 
answered,  "To  take  London  for  the  Emperor, 
Sir."  Here  is  the  fruitage  of  Treitschke's 
words,  "Germany  with  60,000,000  virile  people 
should  address  herself  to  the  downfall  of  Eng- 
land .  .  .  and  then  what  an  inheritance  to  take 
possession  of!"  The  boy's  answer  shows  a 
degree  of  progress  in  education  that  must 
please  the  Kaiser  who  had  said,  "The  army 
is  an  incomparable  school  for  the  education  of 
the  people." 

The  answer  indicates  another  thing,  viz., 
the  deification  of  the  Emperor  as  the  "Over 
War  Lord. ' '  This  claim  to  divinity  the  Kaiser 
practically  makes  when  he  says,  "I  received  my 
crown  from  God.  On  me  as  German  Emperor 
the  spirit  of  God  has  descended.  I  am  his 
weapon;  his  sword;  his  Vicegerent."  "There 
is  only  one  law,  my  lain,  the  law  which  I  myself 
lay  down."  Again  he  sajrs,  "The  best  word  is 
a  blow — the  army  and  navy  are  the  pillars  of 
the  state.  .  .  .  I  rely  firmly  and  securely  on  my 
army."  Children  and  youth,  however  amiable 
by  nature,  cannot  listen  to  such  sentiments, 
especially  from  one  whom  they  regard  as  the 
most  exalted  being  on  earth,  without  having 

[81] 


"Made  in  Germany* 

their  minds  poisoned  with  the  deadly  virus  of 
militarism. 

The  average  American,  wont  to  regard  Ger- 
many as  a  model  in  educational  matters,  is  now 
surprised  and  pained  to  learn  that,  in  the  place 
of  Christian  idealism  which  was  formerly  the 
basis  of  education,  she  has  substituted  a  crass 
materialism. 

This  has  not  been  brought  about  by  the  Ger- 
man people  but  by  the  Kaiser,  the  military 
oligarchy,  and  the  pagan  philosophers.  Schools 
and  universities  have  been  taken  in  hand  by 
the  military  state  which  has  curtailed  their 
freedom  and  made  them  a  part  of  the  military 
machine.  "A  dozen  years  ago,"  says  the 
Springfield  (Massachusetts)  Republican,  "Dr. 
Wolf  von  Schierbrand  told  how  public  educa- 
tion in  Germany  was  suffering  from  an  attempt 
to  curtail  academic  freedom.  'The  Prussian 
minister  of  education  openly  declared  it  to  be 
the  main  mission  of  the  university  to  train 
young  men  into  good  servants  of  the  state  and 
of  the  monarchy.'  "  That  is,  for  the  army. 
"The  whole  spirit  was  changing  in  German 
schools  and  universities.  Among  the  boys  and 
young  men  a  spirit  of  bold  utilitarianism  was 
rampant.  The  present  generation  of  young 
men  has  discarded  old  aims  and  ideals  .  .  .  the 
change  is  most  profound  among  the  university 
students.  They  too  are  the  most  loud-mouthed 
jingoes,   the   blind   admirers    of   unscrupulous 


success." 


[82] 


German  Militarism 

Two  facts  explain  the  militarism  of  German 
universities  and  professors.  One  is  thus  stated 
by  Professor  Munsterberg:  "In  the  German 
view  the  state  is  not  for  the  individuals,  but 
the  individuals  for  the  state. ' '  This  means  that 
the  state  is  something  apart  from  the  people — 
a  thing  that  the  people  really  have  nothing  to 
do  with.  Their  part  is  simple  obedience — as 
the  Kaiser  says,  "absolute,  iron,  blind  obedi- 
ence." This  is  despotism.  The  American  view 
is  that  the  state  is  for  the  individuals,  or  rather 
the  state  is  the  people  politically  organized. 
The  state  and  individuals  are  thus  one.  This 
is  liberty. 

The  other  fact  is,  as  already  suggested,  that 
the  German  university  and  its  professors  are 
largely  controlled  by  the  state.  In  Prussia  full 
professors  are  appointed  by  the  sovereign  him- 
self. They  are  paid  by  the  state.  They  are 
officers  of  the  state.  "The  complacent  pro- 
fessor is  decorated,  the  contumaceous  is  cash- 
iered." The  Kaiser  has  rewarded  and  pun- 
ished them  at  will. 

These  two  facts,  the  autocratic  theory  of  the 
state,  and  the  political  control  of  the  universi- 
ties, fully  account  for  the  attitude  of  German 
professors  respecting  the  war.  They  are  a  part 
of  the  government.  They  belong  to  the  mili- 
tary machine  and  must  serve  it.  We  are  not 
surprised,  therefore,  that  the  most  virulent  and 
loathsome  phrases  of  militarism  have  origin- 
ated with  German  historians  and  philosophers. 

[83] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

The  historian  Treitschke  laid  down  the  vi- 
cious doctrine  that  "Might  made  right." 
"  Among  all  political  sins  the  sin  of  feebleness 
is  the  most  contemptible.  It  is  the  political 
sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. ' '  The  philosopher, 
Nietzsche,  taught  militarism  in  this  fashion: 
"  Ye  have  heard  men  say,  Blessed  are  the  peace- 
makers, but  I  say  unto  you,  Blessed  are  the  war 
makers."  Professor  Munsterberg  says,  "I  ad- 
mit that  the  hostility  which  Germany  is  finding 
to-day  in  all  parts  of  the  world  was  created  by 
the  development  of  German  militarism;  but  it 
was  just  that  militarism  which  constitutes  one 
of  the  most  significant  expressions  of  the  Ger- 
man power  of  organization  or  social  efficiency. ' ' 
Hasden,  an  influential  German  journalist, 
writes,  "Not  against  our  will  and  as  a  nation 
taken  by  surprise  did  we  hurl  ourselves  into 
this  gigantic  venture.  We  willed  it."  This  is 
the  will  to  power,  taught  by  Neitzsche  who  died 
insane  while  his  doctrines  live  insane. 

In  the  same  strain  Professor  Niessen,  privy 
councillor,  writes,  "It  is  militarism  that  has 
permitted  us  to  do  great  things.  Let  us  keep 
our  militarism.  It  will  enable  Germany  to 
retain  her  position,  to  rise  from  disaster.  If 
we  win  let  us  cultivate  militarism  to  the  utmost 
in  order  to  preserve  the  fruits  of  victory."  This 
purpose  to  "cultivate  militarism  to  the  ut- 
most," after  either  defeat  or  victory  in  the 
present  war,  is  a  proclamation  of  war  in  per- 
petuam  against  the  nations  of  the  world.    The 

[84] 


German  Militarism 

thought  of  it  is  paralyzing.  It  leaves  three 
courses  open  to  the  Allies.  They  must  either 
continue  the  war  until  German  militarism  is 
annihilated;  or,  peace  being  made,  leaving  it 
in  force,  they  must  immediately  renew  the  pol- 
icy of  huge  armaments  in  preparation  for  war; 
or  lastly,  the  nations  must  form  a  league  of 
peace  backed  by  a  police  force  strong  enough 
to  compel  Germany  to  disarm.  "We  will  add 
only  one  other  testimony  which  is  truly  rep- 
resentative. Ninety-three  German  authors, 
scientists  and  artists  have  issued  an  appeal  in 
which  they  say,  "It  is  not  true  that  the  combat 
against  our  so-called  militarism  is  not  a  combat 
against  our  civilization  as  our  enemies  hypo- 
critically pretend  it  is.  Were  it  not  for  Ge- 
man  militarism,  German  civilization  would  long 
since  have  been  extirpated." 

What  an  admission!  "German  civilization" 
founded  on  "German  militarism";  which  is 
hatred,  murder,  the  lust  of  blood!  How  ob- 
sessed the  intellect,  how  atrophied  the  heart  of 
a  man  who  does  not  know  that  a  hundred  Ger- 
man or  any  other  civilizations  ought  to  be 
"extirpated"  if  they  can  only  live  by  the  dia- 
bolical exhibition  of  militarism  presented  by 
this  war,  in  which  millions  of  our  brothers  are 
being  mangled  and  killed  amid  shrieks,  groan- 
ings  and  agonies  that  cannot  be  uttered,  leav- 
ing behind  them  aged  parents  going  down  in 
sorrow  to  the  grave,  heart-broken  widows  who 
refuse  to  be  comforted,  and  innocent  little  chil- 

[85] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

dren  thrust  unprotected  by  a  father's  love  upon 
a  cold,  cruel  world.  May  God  in  infinite  mercy 
save  mankind  from  any  civilization  based  on 
such  diabolism! 

Militarism  and  the  German  People  at  Large 

We  are  constantly  assured  on  the  one  hand, 
that  this  is  not  a  war  of  the  German  people, 
who  are  amiable  and  peace-loving,  but  of  the 
Kaiser  and  the  military  oligarchy  that  control 
the  state.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Kaiser  and 
all  German  writers  declare  that  all  classes  of 
the  people  are  absolutely  one  in  regard  to  the 
war;  they  never  cease  to  reiterate  this  as  a  fact 
to  show  the  strength  and  justice  of  their  cause. 
"Americans  are  mistaken,"  says  the  privy 
councilor,  Professor  Niessen,  "in  supposing 
that  the  common  people  in  Germany  are  not  in 
favor  of  militarism." 

The  German  system  of  government  explains 
this  conflict  of  opinion.  It  consists  of  a  hier- 
archy of  officials  beginning  with  the  smallest 
town  officer,  each  official  being  responsible  to 
the  next  higher,  until  it  reaches  the  chancellor, 
who  is  appointed  and  dismissed  by  the  Kaiser, 
who  is  thus  absolute.  ' '  Suffrage  is  on  the  three 
class  system,  which  gives  to  the  rich  first  class 
fifty  to  one  hundred  times  the  voting  power 
that  is  possessed  by  the  poor  third  class." 

The  German  Congress  consists  of  two  bodies ; 
the  upper  house  called  the  Bundesrat  which  is 
appointed  by  the  states  and  never  debates  but 

[86] 


German  Militarism 

merely  votes,  and  the  lower  house,  the  Reich- 
stag. Only  by  courtesy  can  the  Reichstag  be 
called  a  representative  body  since  it  has  no  final 
power.  For  example,  let  its  members  refuse 
to  pass  a  supply  bill  or  veto  what  the  Kaiser 
wants  and  the  order  comes,  "  Break  ranks, 
march ! ' '  and  home  they  go. 

The  whole  political  and  social  machinery  is 
as  systematized  and  arbitrary  as  the  move- 
ments of  an  army,  and  the  common  people  have 
about  as  little  voice  as  does  the  common  soldier 
in  directing  their  own  movements.  Thus  the 
state  is  everything  and  the  individual  nothing. 
He  is  trained  from  infancy  to  blind,  unquestion- 
ing obedience.  He  has  complete  liberty,  how- 
ever, within  the  walls  of  his  large  cell,  or  within 
the  lines  of  the  military  guards  that  surround 
his  industrial  and  all  other  social  camps. 

The  German  people  are  thus  a  part  of  the 
military  machine.  In  a  military  atmosphere 
they  live,  move  and  have  their  being.  Bis- 
marck said  that  the  German  army  was  an 
"army  of  the  folk  itself."  It  is  "theirs  not  to 
reason  why, ' '  but  to  obey.  In  the  words  of  the 
Kaiser,  "Absolute,  iron,  blind  obedience,"  is 
required  and  enforced. 

If  we  add  to  this  condition  of  servility  and 
aloofness  from  the  state,  the  profound  igno- 
rance of  the  common  people,  not  in  matters  per- 
taining to  their  work,  in  which  they  are  very  in- 
telligent, but  in  matters  pertaining  to  the  gov- 
ernment, its  internal  affairs  and  its   foreign 

[87] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

policies,  we  have  a  partial  explanation  at  least 
of  what  Professor  Niessen  calls  the  militarism 
of  the  common  people.  "We  do  not  believe,  how- 
ever, that  the  common  people  of  Germany  or 
any  other  civilized  country,  under  normal  con- 
ditions favor  militarism.     They  hate  it. 

The  German  people  have  been  fearfully  and 
wonderfully  duped  into  the  belief  that  their 
country  was  being  attacked  and  they  were  act- 
ing on  the  defensive.  They  were  told  that  mil- 
lions of  enemies  with  flaming  swords  were  on 
their  frontiers  hastening  to  lay  the  fatherland 
in  ruins. 

A  manifesto  signed  by  ninety-three  German 
scholars,  scientists  and  publicists  says,  "Ger- 
many did  their  utmost  to  prevent  war";  again, 
' '  The  struggle  has  been  forced  upon  her, ' '  and 
the  astounding  statement,  "A  numerical  su- 
periority, which  had  been  lying  in  wait  on  the 
frontiers  assailed  us."  We  once  heard  a 
clergyman  gravely  argue  "that  there  were 
four  kinds  of  lies,"  but  the  above  fabrications 
would  easily  include  all  varieties.  There  is  not 
a  syllable  of  truth  in  these  statements,  but  the 
people  believed  them  and  so  doubtless  did  the 
authors  themselves.  Nobody  had  shown  the 
least  intention  of  "lying  in  wait."  Nobody 
had  "assailed"  her  or  violated  a  single  German 
right  or  proposed  to  do  so.  No  hostile  threat 
of  any  kind,  by  anybody,  had  been  made,  nor 
was  there  the  least  sign  of  such  a  thing  on  the 
whole   political  horizon;    moreover   and   con- 

[88] 


German  Militarism 

clusively,  this  manifesto  does  not  and  cannot 
specify  a  single  act  in  support  of  this 
astounding  statement. 

The  people  were  told  that  the  Kaiser,  in  his 
struggle  for  peace  had,  as  it  were,  spent  his 
nights  in  agonizing  prayer  and  his  days  in 
pleading  with  the  nations  for  a  peace  confer- 
ence to  prevent  war.  This  great  lie  was  swal- 
lowed whole  by  the  people.  All  the  world  now 
knows  that  the  exact  opposite  was  the  truth. 
The  Allies  were  pleading  with  the  Kaiser  to 
stay  the  hand  of  Austria  and  so  keep  the  peace. 
The  Kaiser  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  all  these  en- 
treaties. Germany  was  the  aggressor.  No 
German  apologist  dares  to  assert  that  the 
Kaiser  could  not  by  a  single  word  have  averted 
war,  nor  dare  any  deny  that  the  Kaiser  refused 
to  speak  that  word. 

So  completely  deceived  are  the  people  that  at 
a  public  meeting  held  several  months  after  hos- 
tilities began,  it  was  resolved  that  the  war  must 
be  continued  until  we  "leave  our  enemies  in- 
capable of  ever  again  declaring  war  on  Ger- 
many. Above  all  the  continuous  and  most  far 
reaching  military  preparedness  is  absolutely 
essential."  Thus  are  the  common  people 
buncoed  into  forging  the  chains  which  bind 
them  to  a  system  of  militarism  imposed  upon 
them  by  autocracy. 

The  ignorance  of  the  common  people  was  well 
illustrated  at  the  battle  of  Liege.  Dr.  Freder- 
ick Lynch  says  in  his  ' '  Through  Europe  on  the 

[89] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Eve  of  War,"  " Those  25,000  poor  German 
soldiers  who  were  killed  or  wounded  in  that  aw- 
ful battle  thought  they  were  fighting  French- 
men who  were  trying  to  get  into  Germany.  As 
a  matter  of  fact  the  French  had  made  no  move 
up  to  this  time  and  were  still  trying  to  secure 
peace." 

How  is  it  possible  to  keep  people  so  intelli- 
gent as  the  Germans  in  ignorance  on  matters 
of  such  moment?  The  answer  is,  by  a  rigid 
censorship  of  the  press  and  all  other  avenues 
of  information.  Opposition  to  the  government 
is  not  tolerated.  "Woe  to  the  disobedient!" 
says  the  Kaiser.  Newspapers  are  suppressed; 
freedom  of  speech  curtailed ;  university  profes- 
sors are  muzzled  as  we  have  seen;  public  opin- 
ion is  manufactured,  owned  and  controlled  by 
the  government  with  characteristic  thorough- 
ness and  efficiency.  Bismarck  says,  "It  is  the 
duty  of  the  state  to  control  public  opinion.  It 
has  the  means  to  accomplish  this.  The  people 
must  be  made  to  believe  whatever  their  rulers 
think  it  wise  and  best  for  them  to  believe. ' ' 

It  is  this  organized  and  efficient  ignorance, 
this  popular  gullibility  of  the  Germans  fos- 
tered from  childhood,  and  scientifically  admin- 
istered under  the  great  seal  of  the  state,  that 
enables  the  government,  under  the  shibboleth  of 
love  for  the  fatherland,  to  fool  the  people  into 
the  belief  that  they  are  fighting  in  self-defence. 
Sixty-five  million  Germans  fell  upon  peaceful 
little  Belgium  and  by  plundering,  burning  and 

[90] 


German  Militarism 

murdering  laid  it  in  utter  ruin,  and  when  you 
ask  a  German  the  meaning  of  this,  he  replies, 
"Why,  Germany  is  defending  herself  against 
Belgium ! ' ' 

About  two  years  ago  Germany  increased  her 
army  by  600,000  men.  Soon  afterwards  France, 
in  order  to  meet  the  danger,  increased  her  army. 
The  German  people  groaning  under  the  load  of 
armaments  murmured  against  the  additional 
burden.  Listen  now  to  the  answer  attributed 
to  Bernhardi.  ''The  idea  that  our  armaments 
are  a  reply  to  the  armaments  and  policy  of  the 
French  must  be  instilled  into  the  people." 

Was  the  ruse  successful?  Let  the  popular 
enthusiasm  for  the  war,  which  German  writers 
call  militarism,  answer.  Even  educated  Ger- 
mans believe  that  this  great  increase  of  the 
army  was  caused  by  and  followed  the  increase 
of  the  French  army,  the  exact  reverse  of  the 
truth. 

Another  instance  of  deceiving  the  people  ap- 
pears in  "The  Truth  About  Germany."  This 
says, ' '  We  have  been  forced  to  become  a  nation 
of  soldiers  in  order  to  be  free."  No  evidence 
is  offered  in  support  of  the  statement.  The 
truth  is  the  people  have  become  soldiers  to  en- 
able the  Kaiser  and  military  caste  to  enter  upon 
aggressive  wars  of  conquest.  Germany  in  fear 
of  losing  her  freedom!  We  cannot  repress  a 
smile.  The  Kaiser  himself  exclaims  "We  Ger- 
mans fear  God  and  nothing  else  in  the  world. ' ' 
"In  this  war  it  is  Germany  that  strikes,"  says 

[91] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Harden,  the  able  German  journalist,  and 
"When  she  has  conquered  new  domains  for 
her  genius  then  the  priesthood  of  all  gods  will 
praise  the  God  of  War."  Not  for  defence  nor 
from  fear  but  for  "domains"  have  Germans 
been  forced  to  become  soldiers.  "Weak  na- 
tions have  no  right  to  live,"  says  another 
writer.  Another  authority  writes,  "we  must 
not  wait  for  some  act  of  aggression  but  are 
justified  in  deliberately  provoking  a  war." 
This  is  exactly  what  Germany  has  clone.  We 
could  fill  pages  with  similar  quotations  show- 
ing the  purpose  of  Germany  to  wage  war  for 
dominion,  and  to  impose  her  will  and  her  cul- 
ture upon  other  nations  at  the  mouth  of  Krupps 
and  the  point  of  the  bayonet.  Could  the  com- 
mon people  of  Germany  be  disillusioned  this 
war  would  cease  in  thirty  days.  Some  day  they 
will  know  the  truth  for,  as  Lincoln  said,  you 
can  fool  some  of  the  people  all  the  time,  and  all 
of  the  people  some  of  the  time,  but  you  cannot 
fool  all  the  people  all  the  time. 

Militarism  in  the  German  Church 

An  eminent  American  divine  has  defined  mili- 
tarism as  a  system  based  on  faith  in  military 
power  and  considerations  as  supreme  over 
other  power  and  considerations.  If  this  is  cor- 
rect should  we  not  all  approve  of  militarism  in 
a  defensive  war?  Surely  there  is  nothing 
necessarily  wrong  in  such  faith.  Americans 
had  it  and  had  to  have  it  in  the  wars  that  estab- 

[92] 


German  Militarism 

lislied  and  preserved  the  republic.  On  their 
armies  depended  their  all.  The  ultimate  faith 
however,  was  in  a  God  of  justice  and  judgment, 
of  righteousness  and  love. 

Behind  this  terrible  war  there  is  something 
other  than  "A  system  based  on  military  power 
and  considerations  as  supreme."  There  is  a 
martial  spirit  that  in  the  last  analysis  means 
the  murderous  disposition  or  the  lust  of  blood. 
This  is  militarism.  It  is  not  a  "system"  al- 
though in  giving  it  vent,  in  applying  it,  a  sys- 
tem is  required,  just  as  electricity  is  not  a 
system  although  in  applying  it,  a  system  is 
required. 

In  former  times  this  brutal  lust  could  be 
gratified  in  many  ways.  Men  were  tortured, 
torn  asunder  by  wild  beasts,  or  cut  in  pieces 
and  thrown  to  fishes  for  the  amusement  of  the 
people.  Since  this  is  no  longer  permitted,  the 
only  method  of  gratifying  this  militarism  is  by 
aggressive  war.  This  is  war  for  the  sake  of 
war  and  its  trophies  of  scalps,  conquest,  loot 
and  power.  The  great  jingoes  of  history,  Alex- 
ander, Caesar,  and  Napoleon  regarded  these 
things  as  the  acme  of  glory  and  their  praises 
are  still  sung  by  the  bestial  instincts  of  man. 

Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  Prince  of  Peace. 
He  it  was  who  said,  "Blessed  are  the  peace 
makers  for  they  shall  be  called  the  children  of 
God."  The  world  has  a  right  to  expect  from 
his  ministers  loyalty  to  the  great  Teacher. 

The  attitude  of  religious  leaders  in  Germany 

[93] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

toward  the  war  has  surprised  Christians  the 
world  over.  In  a  letter  "To  the  Evangelical 
Christians  Abroad"  they  utterly  ignore  all  ef- 
forts for  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  issue  be- 
tween Austria  and  Servia.  They  have  no  word 
of  approval  for  Servia 's  proposal  of  arbitra- 
tion, but  refer  to  Austria's  brutal  ultimatum 
as  "The  justifiable  vengeance  for  an  abomi- 
nable royal  murder. f '  Could  it  be  true  that  the 
ministers  of  the  Prince  of  Peace  would  thus  re- 
ject the  humble  request  for  a  peace  conference 
to  adjust  differences?    It  was  even  so. 

Let  us  take  another  instance  of  the  relapse 
from  Christianity.  "The  Truth  About  Ger- 
many" is  signed  by  such  theologians  as  Har- 
nack  and  such  preachers  as  Dryander.  They 
unblushingly  assert  that  "England  and  France 
were  resolved  not  to  respect  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium."  There  is  not  a  shred  of  evidence 
to  support  this  statement.  It  is  wholly  false. 
In  spite  of  her  solemn  agreement  to  keep  out  of 
Belgium,  Germany  had  for  twenty  years  been 
training  her  Krupps  and  strategic  railroads 
upon  Belgium.  At  length  the  little  country  be- 
came so  alarmed  that  she  consulted  with  Eng- 
land and  France,  also  guarantors  of  her  neu- 
trality, as  to  what  they  should  do  in  case  Ger- 
many, regardless  of  her  promise,  should  invade 
Belgium.  That  was  all.  Now  these  ministers 
declare  that  these  very  consultations,  designed 
solely  to  have  all  parties  respect  Belgium  neu- 
trality, prove  that  "England  and  France  were 

[94] 


German  Militarism 

resolved  not  to  respect  it!"  The  charge  is  false 
on  the  face  of  the  facts.  Borne  along  on  the 
current  of  militarism  these  ministers  are  guilty 
of  bearing  false  witness. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  head  of  the  Church, 
the  Kaiser.  His  constant  coupling  of  God  and 
the  army  as  preservers  of  the  Empire  is  an 
evil  omen.  His  declarations  often  end  with, 
"So  help  me  God  and  our  German  Sword." 
He  believes  himself  to  be  a  deeply  religious 
man.  Is  his  religion  that  of  a  Christian?  Let 
us  look  for  a  moment  at  his  conception  of  the 
Church.  He  says,  "I  am  the  Summus  Episco- 
pus  of  my  Church, ' '  then  he  exclaims,  ' '  Hurrah 
for  the  dry  powder  and  the  sharp  Sword!" 
Again  he  says,  "The  sole  support  and  only 
protection  of  the  Church  are  to  be  found  in  the 
Imperial  hand  and  under  the  aegis  of  the  Ger- 
man Empire."  He  said  to  his  troops:  "You 
think  each  day  of  your  Emperor.  Do  not  for- 
get God."  This  reminds  us  of  another  occa- 
sion when  he  is  reported  to  have  bestowed  the 
iron  cross  upon  several  officers  and  God  re- 
ceived honorable  mention.  This  "imperial 
hand"  says,  "When  you  encounter  the  enemy 
you  will  defeat  him.  No  quarter  shall  be 
given,  no  prisoners  taken. ' ' 

These  and  many  like  utterances  are  by  the 
Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  in  Germany. 
They  are  the  negation  of  Christianity  and  re- 
veal the  paganism  and  militarism  of  the 
Church. 

[95] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

When  leading  Germans  say,  "We  are  bound 
to  follow  our  Kaiser, ' '  his  religion  is  of  the  ut- 
most importance.  Of  his  dead  ancestors  he 
says,  "One  day  I  shall  have  to  render  to  them 
an  account  of  both  the  honor  and  glory  of  my 
army."  His  post  mortem  "account"  respect- 
ing a  certain  "scrap  of  paper,"  the  invasion 
of  Belgium,  the  burning  of  homes,  shooting  and 
starving  the  people,  the  dropping  of  bombs 
upon  the  houses  of  working  men,  the  bombard- 
ing of  undefended  towns  and  killing  women 
and  babies,  will  doubtless  be  greeted  with 
applause  by  spirits  in  a  certain  locality; 
but  our  point  now  is  that  the  public  avoival 
of  this  worship  of  ancestors  is  distinctively 
pagan. 

Thor  and  Odin  were  ancient  gods  of  the  Ger- 
mans. They  delighted  in  war.  They  glorified 
good  men,  but  the  only  good  men  were  "war- 
riors who  died  fighting."  Listen  now  to  the 
Kaiser.  "/  do  not  know  of  any  more  reputable 
place  to  die  in  than  in  the  midst  of  enemies." 
Thus  the  Kaiser  pays  homage  to  Thor. 

Attila  was  a  German  butcher  of  men  in  war. 
He  also  murdered  his  own  brother.  He  was 
known  as  the  "Scourge  of  God."  This  is  the 
man  held  up  by  the  Kaiser  as  an  example  to 
his  soldiers,  as  follows:  "Just  as  the  Huns  a 
thousand  years  ago  under  the  leadership  of 
Attila  gained  a  reputation  in  virtue  of  which 
they  still  live  ...  so  may  the  name  of  Ger- 
many become  known  in  such  manner  in  China 

[96] 


German  Militarism 

that  no  Chinaman  will  ever  dare  look  askance 
at  a  German. ' ' 

Attila  claimed  to  be  divine.  The  Kaiser  also 
says,  "Upon  me  the  spirit  of  God  has  de- 
scended" and  he  is  addressed  as  "Your 
Majesty's  Sacred  Person." 

Attila  was  presented  with  the  "Iron  sword 
of  the  War-God."  The  Kaiser  also  bestows 
an  iron  token  upon  his  braves. 

Attila  worshipped  at  the  shrine  of  Odin  who 
delighted  in  war  and  was  armed  with  a  thun- 
der-bolt and  hammer.  The  Kaiser  kneels  at  the 
same  shrine  and  pours  into  the  listening  ear  of 
Odin  these  words  constantly  falling  from  his 
lips; — war,  army,  military  service,  soldiers, 
battle,  fight,  swords,  troops,  bravery,  military 
honor,  uniform,  obedience,  discipline,  conquer, 
enemy,  training,  triumphs,  conflict,  shield,  bat- 
tle-field, brave  deeds,  blood,  officers,  regiments, 
guards,  bayonets,  cannon,  navy,  warships.  No 
monarch  ever  lived  possessed  of  such  a  war 
vocabulary  or  made  such  constant  use  of  it. 

This  paganism  is  veiled  with  a  veneering  of 
Christianity.  The  Kaiser,  however,  is  not  a 
hypocrite.  If  he  deceives  others  he  is  himself 
deceived.  Just  as  the  pious  thug  strangled  his 
victim  or  the  worshipper  of  Devi  plunged  his 
dagger  into  the  heart  of  the  unsuspecting,  the 
act  being  preceded  with  prayer  and  followed 
by  special  religious  rites,  so  the  Kaiser,  in 
soaking  the  soil  of  Europe  with  the  blood  of 
millions,  considers  himself  engaged  in  a  holy 

[97] 


"Made  in  Germany'3 

and  honorable  calling.  He  talks  glibly  of  God, 
of  the  Bible,  of  Christ  and  of  prayer.  His 
religious  terminology  is  Christian,  but  his  god 
is  Mars,  his  saviour  is  his  Army,  his  holy  spirit 
is  the  Sword,  his  heaven  is  Victory,  his  hell  is 
Defeat,  and  his  prayer  is  "Let  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  become  the  kingdoms  of  the  War 
Lord  and  of  the  House  of  Hohenzollern  and  let 
them  reign  forever  and  ever." 

We  are  not,  however,  dealing  with  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Kaiser  with  reference  to  himself, 
but  only  as  it  shows  the  militarism  of  the 
Church  of  which  he  declares  himself  to  be 
" Summits  Episcopus."  He  is  the  representa- 
tive. A  stream  will  rise  no  higher  than  the 
fountain. 

We  have  many  declarations  by  leading  men 
of  his  church  that  militarism  is  a  good  thing, 
the  corner  stone  of  the  state,  a  divine  institu- 
tion to  be  zealously  maintained  in  the  future 
whatever  be  the  issue  of  the  present  war. 

Our  position  is  that  a  civilization  based  upon 
this  principle  is  anti-christian  and  barbarous. 
There  is  but  one  ethical  standard  of  right  and 
wrong.  It  applies  to  individuals  and  nations 
alike.  It  is  futile,  therefore,  to  say  that  by 
militarism  Germans  understand  one  thing, 
Americans  another.  It  is  not  what  anybody 
understands  by  it,  but  what  the  thing  really  is 
that  counts.  It  means  the  abrogation  of  the 
commandment,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill."  It 
means  this  semper  et  ubique  and  it  never  has 

[98] 


German  Militarism 

meant  and  it  never  will  mean  anything  else. 

However  militarism  may  be  disguised  by  the 
so  called  manly  virtues,  however  masked  by 
patriotism  or  cloaked  by  specious  appeals  for 
national  expansion,  aggrandizement  and  glory, 
it  is  pure  thuggism  in  its  essence,  spirit  and 
purpose,  and  an  advancing  civilization  and  the 
stars  in  their  courses  will  fight  against  it  until 
it  is  sent  to  the  bottomless  pit  whence  it  came. 

Our  country,  like  every  other,  has  its  con- 
scienceless jingoes.  They  are  not,  however, 
those  who,  while  deploring  war,  favor  reason- 
able armaments  solely  for  defence.  So  long  as 
a  predatory  nation  is  allowed  to  attack  and  re- 
duce to  vassalage  another  nation,  so  long  will 
it  be  the  only  safe  and  sane  policy  for  every  na- 
tion to  provide  armaments  for  defence.  This 
is  not  militarism,  it  is  self-preservation. 

"Germany  in  the  Next  War,"  page  eleven 
says,  "The  Germans  must,  regardless  of  the 
rights  and  interests  of  other  peoples,  fight  their 
way  to  predominance  and  force  upon  humanity 
German  culture  and  spirit." 

Here  is  militarism  in  all  its  hideous,  moral 
nakedness.  Here  is  the  iniquitous  cause  of  the 
war  stated  concisely,  adequately  and  truthfully. 

The  American  people  look  with  abhorrence 
upon  such  principles.  They  believe  them  to  be 
subversive  of  religion  and  morals,  of  liberty 
and  law,  of  truth  and  justice  and  all  else  that 
makes  life  worth  living.  Their  views  toward 
militarism   and   war,   and   toward   peace   and 

[99] 


"Made  in  Germany' 

brotherhood  among  men,  agree  more  and  more 
with  those  of  Washington  beautifully  expressed 
as  follows :  ' '  My  first  wish  is  to  see  the  whole 
world  in  peace  and  its  inhabitants  one  band  of 
brothers,  striving  who  should  contribute  most 
to  the  happiness  of  mankind.  As  a  citizen  of 
the  great  republic  of  humanity,  I  indulge  the 
idea  that  the  period  is  not  remote  when  the 
benefits  of  free  commerce  will  succeed  the 
devastation  and  horrors  of  war. ' ' 


[100] 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  EIGHTS  AND  DUTIES  OF 
NEUTRALITY 

Neutrality  Defined 

In  the  present  war  America  is  neutral, 
Americans  are  not  neutral.  This  paradox  is 
easily  explained.  In  the  first  instance  the  word 
neutral  is  used  in  an  international  sense ;  in  the 
second  instance  it  is  used  in  a  moral  sense.  In- 
ternationally the  United  States  is  out  of  the 
war;  morally  its  people  are  in  it  and  in  it  just 
to  the  extent  that  they  have  moral  convictions. 

International  neutrality  was  unknown  to  the 
ancients.  Every  nation  was  regarded  as  a 
friend  or  foe.  The  right  of  neutrality  is  a 
product  of  Christian  civilization. 

A  proclamation  of  neutrality  means  that  the 
nation  issuing  it  will  refrain  from  taking  any 
part  directly  or  indirectly  in  a  war  between 
other  nations.  "The  impartiality  which  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  neutral  to  observe  towards  the 
belligerents  has  been  summed  up  by  Vattel 
in  two  propositions  cited  by  Wheaton  with 
approval : — 

"(1)  That  no  assistance  should  be  given 
to  either  party  in  matters  relating  to  war,  un- 
less under  some  pre-existing  stipulation; 

[101] 


'Made  in  Germany" 


n 


(2)  That  in  matters  not  relating  to  war, 
the  neutral  should  not  refuse  to  one  belligerent 
merely  because  he  is  at  war  with  the  other, 
what  she  grants  to  that  other." 

The  ''impartiality"  and  "assistance"  have 
reference  to  material  things  only  and  not  to 
the  feelings  or  sympathies  of  neutrals.  The 
neutral  nation,  however,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
the  friend  of  all  the  belligerents. 

Pkesident  Wilson's  Proclamation  of 
Neutrality 

Our  President  in  his  proclamation  of  neu- 
trality warns  the  people  against  hasty  and  par- 
tisan speech.  Men  of  all  nations  are  among  us 
as  neighbors.  War  stirs  the  deepest  emotions. 
Thus  far  we  agree  with  him.  We  are,  however, 
moral  beings  and  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the 
press  are  corner  stones  of  this  republic.  There 
are  vast  moral  and  political  issues  involved  in 
this  war,  and  Americans  have  a  legitimate  and 
profound  interest  in  them. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  agree  with  the  Presi- 
dent in  urging  a  complete  neutrality  of  thought. 
We  are  bound  to  treat  all  belligerents  alike 
but  we  are  not  bound  to  think  of  them  alike. 
Neutrality  does  not  mean  that  the  government 
or  the  people  shall  have  no  opinions  about  the 
war  or  refrain  from  expressing  them.  It  does 
not  mean  that  they  may  not  consider  its  causes 
and  consequences,  or  that  they  are  indifferent 
to  the  issues  involved,  or  the  manner  in  which 

[102] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

the  war  is  carried  on.  It  does  not  hinder  the 
people  from  criticising  the  belligerents.  It  re- 
quires neutral  nations  to  assert  and  protect 
their  own  rights  when  threatened  by  belliger- 
ents, and,  in  case  international  laws  governing 
the  conduct  of  war  are  violated  by  any  bellig- 
erent, it  is  the  duty  of  a  neutral,  as  one  of  the 
makers  of  such  laws,  to  enter  a  solemn  protest. 

A  subtle  and  mischievous  thing  about  the 
discussion  of  neutrality  in  our  country  is  the 
tacit  assumption  that  there  are  two  standards 
of  morality  concerning  it,  one  for  the  private 
citizen  and  another  for  the  government.  Some 
say  that  private  citizens  may  express  their 
opinions,  but  the  government  must  not  criticise 
or  protest  against  the  most  outrageous  vio- 
lations of  international  law  by  belligerents. 
Others  regard  the  silence  of  the  government  in 
such  cases  as  cowardly  if  not  criminal. 

A  double  standard  of  morality  is  essentially 
the  negation  of  morality. 

International  or  official  neutrality  is  not 
above  the  requirements  of  the  moral  law.  The 
maxim,  nothing  is  politically  right  that  is  mor- 
ally wrong  is  fundamental.  Moral  neutrality 
is  a  misnomer.  God  is  not  neutral.  A  moral 
being  can  no  more  be  morally  neutral  than  a 
seeing  being  can  be  without  sight.  Professor 
George  Trumble  Ladd  of  Yale  says,  "Kant 
teaches  us  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
moral  neutrality."  May  we  not  add  that  the 
moral  instincts  of  any  child  of  ten  years  of  age 

[103] 


"Made  in  Germany' 

that  has  been  properly  brought  up  will  give  the 
same  testimony. 

The  Case  of  Belgium 

We  have  called  attention  in  a  former  chap- 
ter to  Belgian  neutrality  which  was  guaranteed 
by  France,  England,  Austria,  Russia  and 
Germany. 

In  the  London  convention  of  1831  these  five 
powers  declared  Belgium's  neutrality  and 
"Guaranteed  her  that  perpetual  neutrality  as 
well  as  the  integrity  and  inviolability  of  her 
territory."  The  London  treaty  of  1839  made  a 
similar  declaration  and  added  that/' Belgium 
shall  be  bound  to  observe  the  same  neutrality 
toward  all  other  nations."  In  other  words, 
Belgium  agreed  not  to  make  war  upon  other 
nations,  and  these  five  signatory  nations  agreed 
not  to  permit  war  to  be  made  on  Belgium ;  that 
is,  they  guaranteed  her  neutrality.  This  meant 
that  each  guarantor  was  bound  to  go  to  war 
against  any  invader  of  Belgium,  otherwise  the 
guarantee  is  the  veriest  farce. 

The  position,  therefore,  that  a  guarantor  of 
Belgian  neutrality  may  fulfill  the  pledge  to  re- 
spect her  neutrality,  but  need  not  protect  it,  is 
indefensible  and  dishonorable.  To  protect 
means  if  necessary  to  resort  to  force;  but  so 
does  the  protection  of  all  agreements.  The 
simplest  contracts  between  individuals  will  be 
enforced  by  the  sheriff  and  all  the  military 
forces  of  the  state. 

[104] 


Rig  Jits  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  Germany  was  under 
the  most  solemn  treaty  obligations  to  keep  out 
of  Belgium,  and  that  England,  France  and  Rus- 
sia were  under  similar  obligations  to  draw  the 
sword  against  her  the  moment  she  invaded 
Belgian  territory. 

It  should  be  stated  here  that  wholly  apart 
from  this  treaty,  Belgium,  like  every  other 
country  at  peace,  was  immune  by  international 
law  from  invasion. 

The  Hague  convention  of  1907  only  set  its 
own  seal  to  this  well  established  law  as  fol- 
lows: "The  territory  of  neutral  nations  is 
inviolable."  "Belligerents  are  forbidden  to 
move  troops  or  convoys  whether  munitions  of 
war  or  supplies  across  the  territory  of  a  neu- 
tral power." 

If  for  want  of  ratification  or  any  other  rea- 
son this  provision  does  not  apply,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  principle  was  in  full  force 
under  international  law,  and  this  Hague  declar- 
ation adds  its  cumulative  force  and  great  moral 
weight  to  the  existing  law,  and  places  all  par- 
ties under  supreme  obligations  to  observe  it. 
So  absolutely  indisputable  is  this  obligation 
that  the  German  Chancellor,  Herr  von  Beth- 
mann  Hollweg  used  these  words  in  the  Reich- 
stag: "Our  troops  have  occupied  Luxemburg 
and  are  perhaps  even  now  on  Belgian  soil. 
This  act  is  contrary  to  the  rights  of  nations." 
He  proceeded  to  justify  it  on  the  grounds  of 
military  necessity.     The  doctrine   of  military 

[105] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

necessity  is  recognized  by  law.  It  is  defined 
as,  "The  necessity  which  in  war  attends  mili- 
tary operations  and  is  held  sufficient  to  justify 
the  damaging  or  destruction  of  rights  conceded 
to  exist  in  time  of  peace.  It  does  not  admit  of 
cruelty,  wanton  destruction  or  perfidy."  It 
does  not  admit  of  the  violation  of  a  promise  or 
trust  or  of  "modern  law  and  usages  of  war." 

No  military  necessity,  therefore,  existed  for 
the  invasion  of  Belgium,  as  indeed  the  German 
Chancellor  well  knew.  His  only  ground  for 
such  act,  had  he  declared  it,  was  the  vicious 
principle  that  might  makes  right. 

The  moral  obtuseness  of  his  declaration,  its 
political  lawlessness  and  insolent  audacity  are 
without  parallel.  Its  consequences  have  struck 
terror  and  indignation  into  the  hearts  of  men 
everywhere.  The  crime  of  Germany  against 
Belgium  was  fourfold.  It  was  a  violation  of 
international  law;  of  her  solemn  pledge  of 
guarantee;  of  her  ivritten  reneival  by  Bismarck 
in  1870,  and  of  the  Hague  convention  of  1907. 
Whatever  be  the  issue  of  the  war,  the  unani- 
mous verdict  of  the  world  will  be  the  complete 
condemnation  of  Germany  and  the  complete 
justification  of  Belgium. 

Furthermore,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  law  of 
military  necessity  as  above  defined  does  not  ad- 
mit of  "  cruelty,  wanton  destruction  or  per- 
fidy." These  are  the  very  things  of  which 
Germany  has  been  guilty  in  invading  Belgium, 
killing  its  citizens,  and  in  her  submarine  bar- 

[106] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

barities.  England,  on  the  other  hand,  to  her 
praise  be  it  said,  in  her  measures  of  retaliation 
and  reprisal  has  scrupulously  conformed  to 
this  law,  and  the  law  may  be  held  to  be  suf- 
ficiently elastic  to  justify  her  course  respect- 
ing the  commerce  of  neutral  nations. 

Benevolent  Neutrality 

This  is  a  kind  of  "imperfect"  neutrality  or 
a  friendly  leaning  to  one  side. 

By  way  of  preface  let  us  say  that  at  the  out- 
set of  the  war  Americans  were  singularly  free 
from  prejudice.  We  loved  England,  we  ad- 
mired Germany,  we  esteemed  France  and  were 
hoping  the  best  for  Russia.  Our  opinions  have 
not  been  governed  by  ex  parte  statements, 
racial  sympathy,  political  affinities,  religious 
beliefs  or  commercial  interests,  but  solely  by 
the  everlasting  right  and  wrong  involved  in  the 
war,  in  the  way  it  was  begun  and  has  been  car- 
ried on.  Never  was  a  jury  impaneled  more  im- 
partial, more  intelligent,  more  anxious  to  hear 
all  the  evidence,  or  more  conscientious  in 
weighing  it,  than  have  been  the  people  of  the 
United  States  in  this  war. 

This  war  took  the  world  by  surprise.  The 
sudden  invasion  of  Belgium  and  the  awful 
slaughter  at  Liege  where  25,000  Germans  were 
killed  or  wounded,  paralyzed  this  country  where 
the  peace  movement  had  become  deeply  rooted 
in  the  hearts  of  the  people.  Then  came  the 
President's  proclamation  of  neutrality  which 

[107] 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

was  greeted  with  enthusiasm.  The  average 
citizen  did  not  know  just  what  neutrality  was  or 
required  but  he  took  the  President's  word  for 
it.  Let  us  look  at  our  neutrality  with  reference 
to  Belgium  by  making  use  of  a  parable. 

A,  B,  and  G  jointly  establish  a  law  that 
neither  shall  trespass  upon  the  premises  of  the 
other.  After  a  while  G,  in  defiance  of  the  law, 
invades  B's  premises  and  a  fight  ensues  for 
possession.  What  now  is  the  duty  of  A!  Has 
A  no  interest  or  obligation  in  upholding  the 
law  to  which  he  is  a  party?  Can  he  legally  or 
morally  proclaim  neutrality?  But  one  answer 
is  possible.  A  normal  child  of  ten  jTears  with 
unerring  instinct  and  absolute  truth  would 
say  that  A  was  bound  to  go  to  the  assistance  of 
B.  In  no  other  way  could  the  law  hy  which  all 
parties  were  bound  be  upheld.  Furthermore 
it  is  A's  own  law  and  no  less  so  because  it  is 
also  the  law  of  B  and  C.  A  had  no  right  to  be- 
come a  party  to  a  law  which  he  was  not  under 
obligations  to  help  enforce.  If  A  does  not  de- 
mand the  benefits  of  the  law  for  B,  he  cannot 
demand  them  for  himself.  If  when  G  invaded 
B's  premises,  A  had  proclaimed  neutrality,  he 
would  have  violated  the  law,  betraved  B  and 
sanctioned  anarchy. 

A  is  America,  B  is  Belgium  and  G  is  Ger- 
many. They  had  between  them  an  inter- 
national law  which  forbade  either  to  trespass 
upon  the  territory  of  the  other.  Germany,  in 
defiance  of  the  law,  trespassed  upon  Belgian 

[108] 


Eights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

territory  and  war  ensued.  It  was  the  duty  of 
America  to  go  to  the  assistance  of  Belgium. 
Let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  was  America's 
own  law  as  well  as  the  law  of  Belgium  and 
Germany.  International  law  is  now  every- 
where held  to  be  the  common  law  of  the  land. 
If  America  does  not  demand  the  benefits  of  the 
law  for  Belgium  she  may  not  demand  them  for 
herself.  America  had  no  right  to  become  a 
party  to  a  law  and  then  refuse  to  be  a  party  to 
its  enforcement.  That  would  be  the  attitude  of 
the  Maine  statesman  toward  prohibition;  he 
was  in  favor  of  the  law — but  against  its 
enforcement. 

When  Germany  invaded  Belgium  the  neu- 
trality proclaimed  by  America  would  have  vio- 
lated law,  betrayed  Belgium  and  introduced  in- 
ternational anarchy  had  it  not  been  for  a  sin- 
gle circumstance,  viz:  a  release  from  her  obli- 
gations by  Belgium. 

Belgium  had  a  legal,  international  and  moral 
right  to  call  upon  every  nation  amenable  to  in- 
ternational law  to  help  her  enforce  that  law 
against  Germany,  who  frankly  and  officially 
said  to  the  world  upon  her  invasion  of  Bel- 
gium, "This  act  is  contrary  to  the  rights  of 
nations." 

As  a  party  to  international  law,  therefore, 
and  upon  its  confessed  violation,  the  United 
States  had  no  more  right  to  proclaim  neutrality 
without  the  consent  of  Belgium,  than  she  has  to 
proclaim  neutrality  should  one  of  our  states  de- 

[109] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

clare  war  against  another,  or  a  foreign  power 
declare  war  against  the  state  of  Massachusetts. 
Belgium,  by  implication,  gave  her  consent.  She 
did  not  call  on  the  United  States  for  help. 

The  President  issued  his  proclamation  of 
neutrality.  It  soon  became  evident  that  he  had 
gone  beyond  the  requirements  of  what  jurists 
call  "strict"  neutrality,  or  the  with-holding 
material  assistance  from  either  side,  and  en- 
joined neutrality  in  speech,  feeling  and  thought 
toward  all  acts  of  the  belligerents,  including 
the  blackest  and  most  colossal  crime  in  human 
history — the  invasion  of  Belgium.  Here  we 
have  an  instance  of  benevolent  neutrality,  a 
friendly  leaning  to  one  side.  In  what  did  this 
leaning  consist!  In  the  failure  to  make  a 
solemn  protest  against  Germany's  violation 
of  international  law  in  the  invasion  of  Belgium. 

In  releasing  the  United  States  from  the  obli- 
gation of  physical  support,  Belgium  did  not  and 
could  not  release  us  from  the  duty  of  protesting 
against  the  overthrow  of  our  own  common  law 
and  the  law  common  to  the  nations  by  the  act 
of  Germany. 

Our  failure  to  make  this  protest,  our  acquies- 
cence in  this  violation  of  international  law  and 
the  terrible  crime  committed,  gave  Germany  a 
moral  advantage  over  Belgium  of  great  im- 
portance. This  we  repeat  is  benevolent  neu- 
trality. In  addition  to  this,  it  did  violence  to 
the  right,  dishonored  the  law,  and  misrepre- 
sented the  people  who,  while  they  hate  war  and 

[110] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

rejoiced  to  escape  it,  regard  the  obligations  of 
their  country,  the  sovereignty  of  her  laws,  and 
her  honor  as  paramount  to  all  other  considera- 
tions. It  should  be  noted  that  all  other  neutral 
powers  followed  the  example  of  the  United 
States  in  consenting,  by  their  silence,  to  this 
outrageous  breach  of  the  world's  laws. 

What  was  the  effect  of  this  benevolent  neu- 
trality toward  Germany  upon  her  methods  of 
warfare?  The  political  and  military  philoso- 
phy of  Germany  is  absolutely  unique  in  the 
world  of  to-day.  It  is  summarized  by  her  fore- 
most men  in  the  shibboleths,  "World  power 
or  Doivnfall"  and  "We  are  and  must  be 
barbarians." 

Such  utterances  were  at  first  regarded  as  the 
hysterical  vaporings  of  the  Kaiser  and  his  ar- 
rogant brood  of  Junkers.  They  were  taken 
more  seriously,  however,  when  we  heard  Ger- 
man philosophers,  statesmen  and  scholars  de- 
claring that  Gott  had  destined  their  country  to 
become  ruler  of  the  world,  that  its  duty  was  to 
"impose  German  civilization  and  kultur"  upon 
all  peoples  through  "The  will  to  power,"  to  be 
realized  by  means  of  "the  German  sword." 

German  apologists  now  assure  us  that  these 
sentiments  were  unauthorized  and  do  not  rep- 
resent their  government.  Even  the  Kaiser 
says,  "A  world  power  is  pure  nonsense." 

What  these  sentiments  do  represent,  however, 
is  the  exact  procedures  of  the  Germans  in  the 
conduct  of  the  war.     It  is  idle  to  say  that  a 

[111] 


"Made  in  Germany** 

government  repudiates  a  barbarous  philosophy 
when  it  practices  it  so  literally  as  to  horrify  the 
world. 

Pan-Germanism  is  now  asserting  its  world- 
power  aspirations  by  confronting  with  her 
armies  Great  Britain,  France,  Russia  and  Ser- 
via,  by  taking  command  of  the  armies  of  Aus- 
tria-Hungary, by  taking  possession  of  Belgium 
and  Luxemburg,  by  purchasing  with  gold  the 
non-interference  of  Bulgaria,  by  equipping  and 
officering  the  troops  of  Turkey,  and  by  saying 
to  Italy,  if  reports  are  true,  "Serve  my  inter- 
ests or  share  the  fate  of  Belgium." 

Imperial  Rome  never  dreamed  of  such  do- 
minion and  power.  After  eight  months  of  war 
Germany  is  boldly  proclaiming  her  steadfast 
purpose  to  conquer  all  her  enemies  and  achieve 
the  conquest  of  Europe  if  not  the  world. 

As  to  her  other  shibboleth  of  barbarism  she 
has  been  ruthlessly  faithful.  Her  Chancellor 
put  the  whole  idea  and  policy  in  a  nut  shell, 
when  he  declared  in  the  Reichstag  that  "Neces- 
sity knoivs  no  law."  This  means  that  each 
belligerent,  deeming  it  a  "necessity"  to  suc- 
ceed may  set  aside  all  laws  of  civilized  warfare. 
It  declares  that  a  man  feeling  it  a  ' '  necessity ' ' 
to  possess  the  purse  of  another,  will  recognize 
no  law  against  killing  him  and  will  proceed  to 
do  so. 

This  is  the  abrogation  of  all  law  and  govern- 
ment. It  is  the  reign  of  pandemonium.  It  is 
not  so  much   the  doctrine  that  might  makes 

[112] 


Eights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

right  as  that  might  makes  hades.  This  is  the 
principle,  than  which  no  man-eating  Tierra  del 
Fuegan,  no  scalping  North  American  savage 
or  murderous  thug,  ever  conceived  one  more 
brutal  and  diabolical,  which  the  Chancellor  of 
Germany  unblushingly  proclaimed  in  the  Reich- 
stag would  be  followed  in  her  methods  of 
warfare. 

In  acquiescing  in  this  principle  at  the  out- 
break of  the  war  we  believe  the  United  States 
was  guilty  of  benevolent  neutrality  toward 
Germany  which  has  greatly  encouraged  the 
lawlessness  of  her  course,  while  inflicting  a 
most  damaging  blow  upon  Belgium  and  the 
allies,  and  making  necessary  great  sacrifices  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  is  now  en- 
dangering our  peace.  Observe  the  outcome  of 
this  infamous  doctrine  that  ''necessity  knows 
no  law." 

The  Outlook  of  February  3,  1915,  after  citing 
the  recognized  rules  of  civilized  warfare,  says, 
"To  allow  the  violations  of  that  law  to  pass 
unnoticed  is  to  be  unfaithful  to  civilization. 
.  .  .  That  law  was  violated  in  the  invasion  of 
Luxemburg  and  Belgium,  and  it  is  charged 
that  the  law  was  violated  in  Chinese  territory. 
It  has  been  violated  in  the  dropping  of  bombs 
by  airmen  upon  civilians  and  upon  private 
property,  whether  the  towns  in  which  such 
civilians  were  killed  and  such  property  de- 
stroyed were  defended  or  not.  It  has  been 
violated  in  the  deliberate  bombardment  of  un- 

[113] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

defended  towns  and  undefended  districts  in 
great  cities.  It  has  been  violated  by  pillage, 
by  the  levying  of  illegal  contributions  upon  at 
least  one  province  and  several  cities,  by  the  ex- 
action of  collective  penalties  for  individual 
acts,  by  the  demand  for  millions  of  dollars  of 
merchandise  from  private  parties.  It  has  been 
violated  in  the  needless  bonbardment  and  de- 
struction of  monuments  of  religion,  education 
and  art.  It  has  been  violated  in  the  forcing  of 
inhabitants  of  occupied  territory  to  furnish  in- 
formation about  the  armies  of  their  own  na- 
tion. It  has  been  violated  in  the  laying  of  mines 
in  the  open  sea.  It  has  been  violated  in  raids 
by  sea  and  land,  and  by  other  measures  whose 
only  possible  military  consequence,  and  there- 
fore whose  evident  object,  was  to  strike  terror 
into  the  hearts  of  non-combatants.  .  .  .  There 
has  been  exhibited  time  and  time  again  a  ruth- 
less brutality  that  cannot  be  explained  as  the 
irresponsible  action  of  individual  soldiers,  but 
involves  the  deliberate  military  policy  of  re- 
sponsible officers. 

"If  there  had  never  been  a  Hague  conven- 
tion signed,  the  moral  interests  of  the  United 
States  in  these  infractions  of  the  public  law  of 
nations  would  still  be  plain.  The  fact  that 
there  are  Hague  conventions  and  that  the 
United  States  has  signed  and  confirmed  them 
makes  all  the  more  plain  not  only  the  interest 
of  the  United  States  in  these  infractions,  but 
the  right  of  the  United  States  to  say  something 

[114] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

about  them.  In  the  face  of  these  facts  how  can 
the  United  States  remain  silent!" 

Benevolent  neutrality  whether  active  or  pas- 
sive toward  any  belligerent  is  equivalent  to  an 
unneutral  act. 

Upon  the  violation  of  international  law,  it  is 
the  unquestioned  legal  right  and  moral  duty  of 
every  other  country  belonging  to  the  family 
of  nations,  to  enter  its  protest  against  such 
violation. 

What  may  a  belligerent  do  by  way  of  re- 
prisal against  an  adversary  who  has  violated 
international  law?  Sir  Edward  Grey  says, 
"It  is  impossible  for  one  belligerent  to  depart 
from  rules  and  precedents  and  for  the  other  to 
remain  bound  by  them."  Such  is  the  rule  and 
it  has  been  applied  in  many  instances.  How 
far  may  the  reprisal  go  in  violation  of  law? 
There  must  be  limits.  Humanity  requires 
them.  This  is  a  question  not  yet  settled  by  in- 
ternational law.  It  is  well  settled,  however, 
that  in  no  case  can  a  nation  in  making  reprisals 
resort  to  "  cruelty,  wanton  destruction  or 
perfidy." 

How  far  can  such  reprisals  invade  the 
rights  of  neutrals?  This  is  the  subject  matter 
of  notes  exchanged  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  and  Germany.  We  have 
protested  to  Germany  against  the  establish- 
ment of  war  zones  and  submarine  attacks  that 
might  destroy  American  shipping  and  lives, 
and  to  Great  Britain  against  the  use  of  the 

[115] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

American  flag  by  her  merchant  vessels.  Great 
Britain  is  within  her  rights  in  the  occasional 
use  of  our  flag  and  she  disclaims  any  intention 
of  its  general  use.  Both  countries,  therefore, 
agree  as  to  the  law  and  its  observance.  Ger- 
many on  the  other  hand  persists  in  her  illegal 
course  in  regard  to  mines  and  submarines. 

Great  Britain's  violations  of  international 
law  thus  far  appear  to  have  been  by  way  of 
reprisals  against  such  violations  by  Germany. 
Germany  has  been  in  every  instance  the  ag- 
gressor and,  so  far  as  Great  Britain  has  re- 
plied in  kind,  she  is  justified  by  numerous 
precedents  or  by  the  law  of  military  necessity. 

Germany  first  mined  the  North  Sea  in  vio- 
lation of  neutral  rights  if  not  of  belligerent 
rights.  She  made  no  provision  for  the  safety 
of  neutral  vessels.  Thereupon  Great  Britain 
placed  mines  in  the  same  waters,  but  what  is 
all  important,  she  made  careful  provision  for 
the  safety  of  neutral  vessels.  Germany  first 
dropped  bombs  from  Zeppelins  upon  unde- 
fended cities  and  towns  and  non-combatants. 
Then,  if  reports  are  true,  the  allies  retaliated 
by  dropping  bombs  upon  Frieburg  and  Murem- 
burg.  A  German  squadron  of  war  vessels 
made  a  raid  upon  unfortified  English  coast 
towns  killing  many  civilians  including  women 
and  children.  It  was  only  after  the  German 
government  took  possession  of  food  stuffs  that 
Great  Britain  declared  them  contraband,  which 
she  had  a  perfect  right  to  do.     Germany,  how- 

[116] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

ever,  declared  this  attempt  to  starve  her  people 
violated  the  rules  of  war  and  justified  her  own 
counter  violation  by  piratical  submarines.  She 
admits  that  food  for  her  army  is  contraband, 
but  non-contraband  for  civilians.  There  are 
no  civilians  in  Germany.  She  has  repeatedly 
declared  that  the  people  and  army  are  one. 
Bismarck  said,  "The  German  army  is  an  army 
of  the  folk  itself.  It  represents  the  whole  Ger- 
man people."  Twenty-two  German  universi- 
ties unite  in  the  following  declaration  to  for- 
eign universities:  "Our  army  comprises  the 
whole  nation  from  the  first  to  the  last  man." 
Thus  every  man  is  a  soldier  and  every  woman 
a  daughter  of  a  regiment.  How  then  can 
Germany  pretend  that  food  for  the  people  is 
not  food  for  the  army  and  consequently  that 
all  importations  of  food  are  not  properly  con- 
traband? Her  logic  is  further  embarrassed 
by  the  fact  that  she  has  confiscated  the  food 
throughout  the  country.  Her  promise  that  all 
imported  food  shall  go  to  non-combatants  only, 
cannot  be  taken  seriously  since  she  has  officially 
declared  that  "Necessity  knows  no  law"  which 
includes  the  law  of  veracity. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  Great  Britain 
has  sought  to  carry  on  war  in  accordance  with 
international  law,  while  Germany  has  trampled 
upon  that  law  at  every  step.  Already  twenty- 
five  neutral  vessels  have  been  destroyed  by 
submarine  mines  indiscriminately  laid  by 
Germany,  while  up  to  the  present  time  not  a 

[117] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

single  neutral  vessel  has  suffered  from  mines 
laid  by  England. 

In  spite  of  these  facts  one  constantly  hears 
such  statements  as  "It  will  not  do  for  us  to 
condemn  either  side  exclusively";  "Both  sides 
are  equally  guilty."  So  far  as  silence  can 
speak,  the  United  States  has  said  this,  thereby 
doing  great  injustice  to  the  Allies  and  giving 
great  encouragement  to  Germany.  This  is  be- 
nevolent neutrality. 

The  course  pursued  by  the  United  States 
in  the  case  of  the  Belgian  Mission  is  an- 
other instance  of  benevolent  neutrality  by  our 
government. 

Not  only  treaty  obligations  but  international 
law  prohibited  Germany  from  entering  Bel- 
gium. Her  presence  there  was  therefore  a 
trespass. 

All  hostilities  were  illegal ;  all  killing  of  Bel- 
gians was  murder;  all  burning  of  buildings 
was  arson ;  all  seizing  of  property  was  pillage ; 
all  levies  of  money,  taking  of  hostages  and 
other  acts  were  the  acts  of  brigands.  That 
these  things  were  done  by  an  army  in  no  way 
alters  the  character  of  their  acts.  In  resisting 
them  the  Belgians,  according  to  the  Hague 
conventions,  committed  no  act  of  war,  but  law- 
fully defended  their  property,  their  homes  and 
their  lives. 

All  this  is  a  matter  of  supreme  concern  to 
all  neutral  countries,  not  only  because  of  hu- 
mane considerations,  but  especially  because  of 

[118] 


Rig  Jits  and  Ditties  of  Neutrality 

the  violation  of  international  law  which  is 
their  own  law  and  as  sacred  as  their  municipal 
law. 

Acting  upon  this  just  assumption,  the  Bel- 
gian government  in  September  last  sent  a  Mis- 
sion, consisting  of  her  Minister  of  Justice  and 
three  Ministers  of  State,  to  the  United  States 
to  lay  before  the  President,  "An  account  of 
the  violation  of  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  and 
of  the  laws  of  war  on  Belgian  territory." 

The  President  received  the  Mission.  It  laid 
before  him  the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality 
and  the  atrocities  committed  by  the  German 
army.  Among  these  were  the  killing  of  citi- 
zens, the  massacre  of  Aerschot  and  the  whole 
revolting  story  of  burning,  killing,  extortion, 
seizing  hostages  and  the  use  of  women  as 
screens  against  bullets.  Names,  places,  dates 
and  all  details  for  verification  were  given.  All 
those  acts  were  not  only  violations  of  the  laws 
of  war  but  barbarous. 

The  President  listened  to  the  story  and  must 
have  been  profoundly  moved.  He  told  the  Mis- 
sion that,  while  as  a  neutral  he  could  not  con- 
duct an  ex  parte  investigation,  he  would  favor 
an  international  investigation  at  the  end  of  the 
war. 

So  far,  the  course  of  the  President  was  wise 
and  statesmanlike,  but  he  left  undone  the  thing 
he  should  have  done.  He  should  have  protested 
not  to  Germany  alone,  but  in  a  note  to  all  the 
belligerents  and  to  all  nations  against  all  vio- 

[119] 


"Made  in  Germany'' 

lations  of  the  laws  of  war.  Such  protest  was 
due  from  this  great  nation.  It  was  not  only 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  strictest  neutral- 
ity, but  neutrality  itself  demanded  it.  All 
considerations  of  public  morality  and  law  de- 
manded it.  No  offence  could  possibly  have 
been  taken  by  any  belligerent  from  such  a 
protest  courteously  and  impartially  worded. 
Other  neutrals  would  have  followed  our  exam- 
ple and,  as  intimated  by  Sir  Edward  Grey,  such 
protest  would  undoubtedly  have  led  to  a  dimin- 
ution of  the  horrors  of  the  war. 

The  President  knew  that  at  least  a  part  of 
the  indictment,  the  illegal  invasion  of  Belgium, 
was  true.  He  had  copies  of  the  posted  orders 
of  German  officers  to  shoot  hostages  and  other 
innocent  civilians.  These  inhuman  orders 
alone  called  upon  the  President  to  protest. 
The  agonizing  cries  of  thousands  of  wounded 
and  dying  men  innocent  of  wrong  called  upon 
him  to  protest.  Outraged  international  law  in 
thunder  tones  called  upon  him  to  protest. 
Every  nation  in  the  world  should  have  pro- 
tested. Every  community,  every  church,  every 
brotherhood,  every  man  and  woman  on  the  face 
of  the  earth  might  well  have  protested.  Uni- 
versal justice  and  mercy  pleaded  with  the  Pres- 
ident to  protest.  The  brave  but  bleeding  Bel- 
gians, being  crucified  for  their  devotion  to  the 
sovereignty  of  law  and  the  sanctity  of  treaties, 
called  upon  him  to  protest.  Such  protest  was 
due  the  King  of  Belgium  and  his  highest  dig- 

[120] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

nitaries  who  had  crossed  the  ocean  to  ob- 
tain it.  It  was  due  the  humane  people  of  the 
United  States  and  all  other  countries,  who 
were  paralyzed  at  this  relapse  from  civilized 
warfare  into  the  blood-curdling  cruelties  of 
savages. 

We  are  told  that  these  charges  are  made  by 
enemies  and  are  not  true.  Let  us  see.  We 
have  before  us  the  fac-simile  copies  of  twelve 
proclamations  and  scores  of  orders  issued  by 
German  commanders,  posted  in  public  places, 
dated,  signed  and  certified.  Any  one  can  ver- 
ify them.  No  one  denies  them.  They  teem 
with  such  phrases  as  " Shoot  on  the  spot." 
' '  The  whole  place  will  be  burned  down. "  "  The 
town  will  be  razed  in  a  quarter  of  an  hour." 
"It  was  with  my  consent  that  the  general  had 
the  whole  place  burned  down  and  about  one 
hundred  people  shot."  (The  actual  number 
was  four  hundred.)  "Hostages  have  been 
taken  and  on  the  first  attempt  to  destroy  the 
telegraph,  they  will  be  immediately  shot." 
"The  town  of  Wavre  will  hand  over  $600,000 
or  be  set  on  fire,"  and  so  on  ad  infinitum  et  ad 
nauseum. 

In  the  face  of  facts  so  open  that  he  who  runs 
may  read,  twenty-two  German  universities 
have  united  in  sending  a  formal  protest  to 
foreign  universities,  denying  these  accusations 
against  German  troops,  and  we  are  bound  to 
believe  they  are  sincere.  It  should  be  borne 
in  mind,   however,   that   German   universities 

[121] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

are  under  government  control  and  must 
think,  speak  and  act  largely  as  government 
directs. 

The  charges  by  Germans  that  the  allies  were 
using  dumdum  bullets  were  entitled  to  the 
same  consideration  as  those  made  by  the  Bel- 
gian Mission.  It  was  not  enough  for  the  Pres- 
ident simply  to  receive  the  charges  and  dismiss 
the  complainants.  Something  more  was  due 
the  representatives  of  a  nation  that  waited 
upon  the  President  and  formally  presented 
grave  charges  that  weapons  known  only  to 
savage  warfare  were  being  used.  The  Presi- 
dent should  have  expressed  his  full  sympathy 
with  the  views  of  the  protestants  and,  though 
declining  an  ex  parte  investigation,  or  to  pro- 
nounce judgment  in  the  matter,  he  should  have 
sent  a  solemn  protest  to  all  belligerents,  against 
the  use  of  dumdum  bullets  as  a  violation  of 
the  international  laws  of  war,  to  which  the 
United  States  was  a  party  and  under  the  most 
solemn  obligations  to  uphold.  His  failure  to 
do  this  was  a  distinct  favor  to  the  Allies  and 
a  distinct  injury  to  Germany,  an  instance  of 
benevolent  neutrality  having  all  the  force 
of  an  unneutral  act.  It  was  none  the  less 
so  because  of  its  smaller  significance  in 
comparison  with  the  charges  of  the  Belgian 
Mission. 

Our  President  and  all  others  who  object  that 
our  protest  against  violation  of  the  laws  of 
war  would  have  been   offensive   to   Germany 

[122] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

seem  to  forget  that  Germany  herself  officially 
appeared  before  the  President  and  requested 
him  to  make  such  protest. 

It  has  been  objected  that  this  view  of  the 
duty  of  the  United  States  would  have  required 
us  to  be  continually  protesting  against  every 
alleged  violation  of  the  laws  of  war.  Why 
not?  This  is  exactly  what  the  United  States 
is  doing  in  her  own  territory.  Every  day  she 
is  making  complaints,  that  is,  protesting 
against  the  violation  of  her  laws  and  doing 
all  she  can  to  put  a  stop  to  it.  No  one  criti- 
cises such  acts  as  meddlesome  or  undignified. 
Why  then  should  she  be  silent  under  the  spe- 
cious plea  of  neutrality,  when  her  larger  and 
more  sacred  law,  because  common  to  all  na- 
tions, is  trampled  upon?  That  such  silence 
helps  the  law  breaker  and  injures  the  sufferer 
will  not  be  denied.  This  is  benevolent  neutral- 
ity and  a  violation  of  all  law  common,  inter- 
national and  moral. 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  view  would 
require  us  to  support  our  protest  with  force 
which  would  mean  war.  It  certainly  would, 
unless  we  were  honorably  released  from  such 
obligation  by  agreement,  distance,  unprepared- 
ness  or  other  circumstance.  If  the  United 
States  belongs  to  the  family  of  nations  we  can- 
not escape  its  obligations.  Can  we  claim  its 
benefits  and  decline  its  burdens?  Can  we 
demand  the  protection  of  international  laws 
and  then  refuse  to  help  support  them?     The 

[123] 


.» 


"Made  in  Germany' 

President  answers  in  the  affirmative.  We 
answer  in  the  negative. 

The  obligation  to  take  up  arms  for  the  en- 
forcement of  international  law  is  precisely 
what  is  contemplated  by  collective  action  to 
establish  an  international  court  with  a  police 
force,  which  would  be  an  army,  to  prevent  any 
nation  from  making  war. 

Another  objection  against  protests  is  that 
they  might  "  involve  us  in  serious  complica- 
tions." The  objectors  wisely  refrain  from 
making  any  suggestions  as  to  how  this  might 
happen.  It  is  a  gratuitous  assumption  and  a 
bogey.  We  have  already  made  repeated  pro- 
tests far  more  objectionable,  because  relating 
exclusively  to  our  own  interests,  but  no  "seri- 
ous complications"  have  followed  or  are  likely 
to  follow.  How  much  less  likely  then  are  such 
"serious  complications,"  when  our  protests 
concern  matters  in  which  our  sole  interest  is 
the  integrity  and  sanctity  of  international  law 
and  the  blessings  that  follow  its  observance? 

Our  distinguished  ex-president,  William  H. 
Taft,  endorses  President  Wilson's  course  and 
says,  he  "would  not  have  interfered  by  diplo- 
matic protest  regarding  the  invasion  of  Bel- 
gium." Is  a  protest  interference?  To  inter- 
fere is  to  meddle  in  matters  that  do  not  concern 
us.  Did  not  the  violation  of  international  law 
in  the  invasion  of  Belgium  concern  us?  Are 
we  not  a  member  of  the  family  of  nations  so 
that  international  law  is  our  law  as  well?    If 

[124] 


Eights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

so  are  we  "interfering"  when  we  ask  that  the 
law  be  observed?  We  should  constantly  bear 
in  mind  the  fact  that  all  jurists  hold  that  inter- 
national law  is  the  common  law  of  the  land. 
It  was  our  legal  duty,  therefore,  to  protest 
against  its  violation  in  the  invasion  of  Belgium. 

There  was  another  and  infinitely  more  bind- 
ing obligation  to  protest  resting  upon  the 
United  States,  and  that  was  the  moral  obliga- 
tion imposed  upon  us  by  the  behests  of  our 
Christian  religion  and  the  common  conscience 
of  mankind.  This  is  the  Supremo-  Lex  tower- 
ing above  all  human  laws  and  treaties  to  which 
all  men,  all  presidents  and  nations,  all  kings 
and  potentates  and  peoples  owe  immediate  and 
unconditional  obedience.  Any  neutrality  that 
defies  this  law  is  vicious  and  unneutral  in  its 
very  nature. 

It  was  and  still  is  the  mandate  of  this  su- 
preme law,  that  a  solemn  protest  be  made 
against  the  unrighteousness  of  the  invasion  of 
Belgium  and  the  hordes  of  murderers,  incen- 
diaries and  brigands  who  were  turned  loose 
upon  her  soil. 

Closely  akin  to  the  foregoing  objection  that 
a  protest  would  be  "interference"  is  the  one 
expressed  as  follows,  "We  should  mind  our 
own  business." 

This  is  precisely  the  position  first  taken  by 
a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Cain:  "Am  I  my 
brother's  keeper?"  What  business  is  it  of 
ours  how  the  laws   of  nations   are  violated? 

[125] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

What  do  we  care  how  many  Belgians  are  mur- 
dered in  cold  blood?  ''Mind  our  own  busi- 
ness!" That  is  just  what  the  chief  priests 
said  to  Judas  when  he  begged  them  to  take 
back  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  because  he  had 
betrayed  innocent  blood:  "What  is  that  to 
us?  see  thou  to  that;"  "We  mind  our  own 
business."  That  is  what  the  priests  and  Le- 
vites  said  as  they  passed  by  on  the  other  side, 
leaving  the  poor  man  who  had  been  robbed  and 
wounded  to  suffer  and  die  by  the  side  of  the 
road.  "Mind  our  own  business"  is  the  literal 
translation  of  the  diplomatic  language  of  the 
President  to  the  envoys  of  Belgium  and  Ger- 
many when  they  laid  before  him  the  alleged 
violations  of  the  laws  not  only  of  nations  but  of 
humanity. 

Ex-President  Taft  says,  "A  neutral  nation 
which  fails  to  protest  against  violations  of  the 
laws  of  war  as  between  belligerents,  cannot  be 
said  to  acquiesce  in  those  violations  or  to  rec- 
ognize them  in  any  way  as  a  precedent  which 
will  embarrass  us. ' '  This  dictum  seems  faulty 
for  several  reasons. 

(1)  It  ignores  the  fact  that  "the  laws  of 
war"  are  our  own  laws.  This  fact  alone  set- 
tles the  matter. 

(2)  Mr.  Taft,  when  president,  was  not 
silent  when  the  laws  were  violated,  but  vig- 
orously protested  in  the  proper  manner.  Had 
he  not  done  so  he  would  have  acquiesced  in 
their  violation. 

[126] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

(3)  If  a  member  of  a  family  commits  a 
series  of  crimes  and  the  other  members  stand 
silently  by  making  no  protest,  would  Mr.  Taft 
say  "They  could  not  be  said  to  acquiesce  in 
those  violations  of  law"? 

(4)  This  dictum  is  hostile  to  a  maxim  which 
universal  experience  has  sanctioned,  namely: 
"Silence  gives  consent,"  that  is,  failure  to  pro- 
test is  acquiescence. 

(5)  Mr.  Taft  says,  "When  the  action  of  a 
belligerent  directly  affects  our  commercial  in- 
terests, then  ive  must  protest  or  acquiesce  in 
the  wrong."  In  one  breath  he  says  failure  to 
protest  is  not  acquiescence  and  in  the  next 
breath  he  says  failure  to  protest  is  acquies- 
cence. In  matters  of  commerce  we  are  bound 
to  protest,  but  in  matters  of  morals  we  have  no 
concern ! 

(6)  He  says  such  protest  would  "Injure 
our  attitude  of  neutrality. ' '  This  assumes  that 
we  must  be  neutral  toward  the  violation  of 
international  laws.  Does  our  "attitude  of 
neutrality"  require  us  to  keep  still  when  inter- 
national law  is  violated?  Strict  neutrality 
merely  refuses  material  aid  to  either  side.  It 
does  not  require  or  imply  neutrality  or  indif- 
ference toward  the  violation  of  the  laws  of 
war. 

(7)  The  most  serious  objection  to  this  posi- 
tion is  its  absolute  divorce  from  morality.  The 
matter  is  treated  as  if  it  were  one  of  expedi- 
ency merely.    All  questions  of  right  and  honor, 

[127] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

of  justice  and  humanity,  and  all  reverence  for 
international  law  are  carefully  eliminated.  The 
wicked  invasion  of  Belgium,  the  wholesale 
extortion,  burning,  pillage  and  murder  have 
no  claim  to  notice  upon  the  United  States! 
We  are  and  must  be  neutral  toward  this  ini- 
quity; neutral  toward  the  violation  of  the 
moral  law  of  the  universe ;  neutral  toward  the 
sufferings  of  our  fellow  men;  neutral  espe- 
cially toward  the  cries  of  the  wounded,  the 
groans  of  the  dying,  the  streaming  tears  of 
widowed  wives,  soilless  mothers  and  the  home- 
less, starving  women  and  children  of  Belgium! 
Undoubtedly  we  should  "  abhor  that  which  is 
evil, ' '  but  let  us  keep  still  about  it,  since  a  pro- 
test would,  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Taft,  "injure 
our  attitude  of  neutrality!" 

Opinions  differ  as  to  whether  the  Hague 
conventions  are  binding  upon  neutrals  and  bel- 
ligerents. The  last  article  says  that  unless  all 
belligerents  sign  them  they  are  null.  Servia 
did  not  sign  them.  If  all  had  signed  it  is  con- 
ceded that  these  conventions  would  have  cre- 
ated a  treaty  to  which  the  United  States  was 
a  signatory,  and  that  we  should  have  been 
bound  to  protest  against  its  violation ;  as  it  is 
we  are  not  so  bound.  This  is  Mr.  Taft's  posi- 
tion. Is  it  tenable?  Suppose  the  Hague  con- 
ventions, as  such,  are  not  legally  binding,  it  is 
a  non  sequitur  to  infer  that  we  should  not  pro- 
test against  their  violations.  We  are  not  le- 
gally bound  to  be  grateful,  but   it   does   not 

[128] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

follow  that  we  should  not  protest  against 
ingratitude.  What  the  Hague  conventions  con- 
demned were  moral  wrongs.  Moreover,  pre- 
existing international  law  had  already  forbid- 
den these  things,  so  that  they  were  illegal  as 
well.    Let  us  suppose  a  parallel  case. 

A  convention  resolves  that  theft  be  prohib- 
ited, but  unless  all  the  members  sign  the  reso- 
lution it  is  not  in  force.  Very  soon  a  member 
begins  to  steal.  Could  any  one  object  to  a 
protest  on  the  ground  that  all  the  members  did 
not  sign  the  resolution?  If  not  why  not? 
Because  it  is  wrong  to  steal.  Because  two  pre- 
existing laws,  one  moral  and  one  criminal  for- 
bade it.  The  resolution  was  only  declaratory 
although  it  emphasized  the  pre-existing  laws. 

Turn  now  to  the  Hague  conventions.  They 
prohibit  the  invasion  of  a  neutral  nation  and 
killing  her  people,  but  unless  all  the  belliger- 
ents sign  the  conventions  they  are  not  in 
force.  Very  soon  Germany  invaded  Belgium 
and  killed  her  people.  Could  any  one  object 
to  a  protest  on  the  ground  that  all  the  members 
had  not  signed  the  conventions?  If  not  why 
not?  Because  such  invasion  and  killing  are 
wrong.  Because  two  pre-existing  laws,  one 
moral  and  one  international  forbade  them. 
The  conventions  were  only  declaratory,  al- 
though they  emphasized  the  pre-existing  laws. 

If  the  conventions  did  not  legally,  per  se, 
demand  a  protest,  the  two  other  laws  did 
demand  one.     They  are  the  laws  of  our  own 

[129] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

and  all  other  nations.  Moreover,  the  Hague 
conventions  are  morally  binding,  since  they 
register  the  moral  convictions  and  pledges  of 
a  large  majority  of  the  forty- three  nations 
represented.  Add  to  this  the  obligation  of 
the  other  pre-existing  moral  and  international 
laws,  and  the  United  States  may  well  feel  that 
the  Hague  conventions  have  all  the  dignity  and 
force  of  positive  laws,  binding  upon  us,  and 
against  the  violation  of  which  we  are  bound  to 
protest  by  every  consideration  of  honor  and 
justice.* 

A  prominent  religious  journal  expresses  the 
fear  of  some  that  a  protest  "would  have  car- 
ried this  nation  to  the  verge  of  war. ' '  In  what 
would  the  offence  consist?  We  have  already 
made  several  protests  and  no  offence  has  been 
taken.  We  protested  against  England's  deten- 
tion of  our  ships  in  the  search  for  contraband. 
No  one  thought  of  war  in  the  matter.  Again 
we  protested  against  the  warships  of  belliger- 
ents hovering  about  our  coasts  just  outside  the 
three  miles  limits,  and  again  against  the  gen- 
eral use  of  our  flag  by  British  merchantmen, 
and  again  against  the  prohibition  of  all  com- 
mercial intercourse  by  sea  with  Germany  other 
than  by  legal  blockade.    No  war  or  sign  of  war 

*I  am  indebted  to  the  Honorable  Theodore  Roosevelt  for  the  following  sug- 
gestion received  after  this  was  in  type:  "You  are  quite  right  in  saying  that  we 
should  have  interfered  for  Belgium  even  if  the  Hague  Conventions  had  not  de- 
manded it.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  they  did  demand  it.  When  on  August  3rd , 
Germany  invaded  Belgian  territory  Germany  was  not  at  war  with  either  Servia 
or  Montenegro.  All  the  belligerents,  so  far  as  Germany  was  concerned,  were 
signers  of  the  Hague  Convention;  and  there  is  no  excuse  for  Germany's  action 
and  no  excuse  for  our  inaction.  And  we  must  not  shrink  from  war  if  war  is 
necessary  to  righteousness."     (The  italics  are  ours.) 

[130] 


Eights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

has  followed  these  protests.  We  have  also 
protested  against  Germany's  unlawful  subma- 
rine method  of  warfare  and  threatened,  in  case 
of  the  loss  of  American  ships  or  lives,  that  we 
''should  be  constrained  to  hold  the  Imperial 
government  of  Germany  to  a  strict  account- 
ability." Did  this  protest  and  threat  bring  us 
''to  the  verge  of  war"?  Not  at  all.  We  do 
not  want  war. 

A  courteous  protest  to  Germany  against  the 
invasion  of  Belgium,  the  killing  of  her  citizens 
and  other  unlawful  acts,  could  not  be  in  any 
sense  a  casus  belli.  On  the  contrary  there  is 
every  reason  to  believe  that  such  protest  would 
have  appealed  to  the  sentiments  of  justice, 
humanity  and  reverence  for  law  that,  in  spite 
of  German  acts,  must  be  struggling  for  ex- 
pression in  the  German  breast. 

Such  protest  should  be  couched  in  the  most 
courteous  and  friendly  terms.  It  should  state 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  United  States  was  a 
member  of  the  family  of  nations,  owing  alle- 
giance to  and  bound  by  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions for  the  conduct  of  war,  as  established  by 
international  law,  she  felt  it  to  be  her  privilege 
and  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  all  belligerents 
and  neutral  nations  to  the  requirements  of 
these  laws,  and  to  the  imperative  necessity  of 
upholding  them.  It  should  recite  the  alleged 
infractions  of  these  laws  without  pronouncing 
judgment,  or  necessarily  naming  accused  bel- 
ligerents.     It    should    then    solemnly   protest 

[131] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

against  these  and  all  violations  of  international 
law,  and  warn  all  nations  that  they  would  be 
held  responsible  by  the  great  family  of  nations 
for  such  violations.  It  should  then  urge  all 
nations  to  utter  a  similar  protest  and  warning. 
We  believe  such  a  protest,  especially  if  fol- 
lowed by  other  neutrals,  would  have  made  a 
profound  impression  and  have  mitigated  the 
horrors  of  the  war.  Had  it  anticipated  the 
invasion  of  Belgium,  it  might  have  prevented 
it.  It  is  too  late  to  prevent  what  has  happened, 
but  it  is  not  too  late  to  influence  the  future. 
It  is  never  too  late  to  do  right.  Whenever  we 
refuse  to  do  the  right  thing,  we  are  helping  the 
party  that  is  doing  wrong,  and  this  is  benevo- 
lent neutrality. 

The  Neutrality  of  Ignorance 

There  is  some  excuse  for  the  neutrality  of 
ignorance  on  the  part  of  those  who,  for  lack 
of  time  or  opportunity,  are  unable  to  learn 
the  facts  connected  with  the  war,  and  so  to 
form  an  intelligent  judgment.  Neutrality  in 
such  cases  is  the  only  honest  position  to  take. 
Some,  however,  profess  to  be  neutral  on  the 
ground  that  the  truth  which  would  justify  them 
in  taking  sides  is  not  now  obtainable. 

A  writer  fresh  from  the  scenes  of  war,  where 
he  had  spent  several  months,  says,  "Americans 
will  be  amazed  to  hear  the  truth  about  the  war 
in  Europe,"  and  he  adds  that  "the  news  we  get 
is  distorted  by  the  English  to  suit  their  own 

[132] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

purposes."  We  looked  eagerly  through  his 
address  for  facts  or  items  of  information,  which 
of  course  he  must  have  had  to  justify  his 
sweeping  assertion,  but  we  looked  in  vain.  He 
did  not  give  even  a  hint  of  the  things  at  which 
we  should  be  ' '  amazed, ' '  and  the  fair  inference 
is  that  he  could  not.  It  was  an  instance  of  the 
fallacy  of  argumentum  ad  ignorantium  and 
amounted  only  to  the  stereotyped  personal 
opinion  of  the  German  apologist  posing  as  a 
neutral. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  end  of  the  war 
will  add  to  our  knowledge  of  its  origin,  causes 
and  conduct  thus  far.  The  means  of  knowledge 
in  our  day  are  too  many  and  certain  to  leave 
us  in  any  doubt  concerning  these  things.  All 
history  bearing  upon  the  war,  all  material  facts 
leading  up  to  it,  all  essential  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence preceding  it,  all  the  preparations, 
all  the  books,  lectures  and  speeches  that  for 
years  have  been  advocating  it,  and  all  the 
objects  to  be  sought  by  it,  are  known  to  us  in 
all  fullness  and  completeness.  The  points  that 
are  in  dispute  are  wholly  immaterial.  No 
future  day  or  age  will  begin  to  have  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  war  so  clear,  accurate  and  complete 
as  we  now  possess.  Minor  details  and  incidents 
will  appear,  but  lapse  of  time  will  obscure  far 
more  truth  than  it  will  bring  to  light. 

Of  course  there  are  remote  causes  of  this 
war;  there  are  remote  causes  of  everything. 
The  chain  of  cause  and  effect  runs  back  to 

[133] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Adam.  Eemote  and  indirect  causes  open  the 
field  of  speculation  where  the  human  mind 
delights  to  roam.  No  just  judgment,  however, 
as  to  the  responsibility  for  this  war  or  any- 
other  is  possible  that  is  based  on  causes  indi- 
rect, remote,  historical,  philosophical,  political, 
military,  racial,  physical,  psychological  or 
moral  running  back  through  millenniums.  A 
just  judge  and  jury  ask,  "Who  committed  this 
crime?"  The  remote  causes  are  properly 
excluded  as  irrelevant  and  the  perpetrator  is 
declared  guilty  and  punished. 

Over  against  this  view  there  is  an  antiquated 
cast  of  mind  like  that  of  Professor  Casaubon, 
very  scholarly  and  wholly  untrammeled  by 
common  sense,  which  assures  us  that  near 
vision,  owing  to  passion  and  prejudice,  is  sub- 
ject to  intellectual  astigmatism  and  is  unreli- 
able, that  distance  alone  furnishes  that  calm 
and  dispassionate  mood  for  investigation  that 
yields  assured  results.  As  distance  increases, 
the  object  becomes  ever  clearer,  and  not  until 
it  passes  entirely  out  of  sight  do  we  have  all 
the  conditions  for  perfect  vision.  Only  give 
us  sufficient  time  and  we  shall  discover  where 
Homer  was  born,  who  wrote  Shakespeare's 
plays,  that  no  such  character  as  Shakespeare 
ever  lived,  and  the  writings  attributed  to  him 
were  several  hundred  years  earlier  or  later 
than  the  traditional  date. 

More  seriously,  we  assert  that  there  is  a  class 
of  minds  that  finds  satisfaction  in  ignorance, 

[134] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

in  case  of  controversy  or  conflict  between  their 
fellow  men.  In  this  war  they  do  not  know  or 
care  to  know  the  merits  of  either  side,  since 
such  knowledge  would  disturb  their  neutrality 
of  ignorance.  "Where  ignorance  is  bliss  'tis 
folly  to  be  wise."  The  neutral  attitude  of 
thousands  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  this 
ground.  They  cannot  say  who  brought  on  the 
war,  or  what  was  the  cause,  or  what  is  the 
object  of  it. 

By  neutrality  of  ignorance,  we  would  not 
imply  that  such  neutrals  are  necessarily  igno- 
rant men ;  on  the  contrary  they  are  often  men 
of  ability  and  learning  who  have,  however,  shut 
their  eyes  to  the  truth  about  this  war.  They 
tell  us  that  many  causes  political,  military, 
commercial  and  racial,  etc.  contributed  to  pro- 
duce it;  that  it  was  a  development  from  "his- 
torical roots;"  that  it  was  a  necessity  in  the 
evolution  of  the  race;  that,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  it  was  bound  to  come  anyway.  They 
assign  almost  every  reason  for  the  war  except 
the  truth  which  they  would  not  relish  and  for 
that  reason  do  not  and  cannot  perceive. 

Another  variety  of  the  neutrality  of  igno- 
rance is  thus  stated  by  President  Arthur  T. 
Hadley  of  Yale  University:  "To  any  one  ivho 
looks  at  the  present  European  crisis  dispas- 
sionately, the  striking  thing — /  may  well  say 
the  pathetic  thing — is  the  failure  of  the  differ- 
ent nations  to  understand  anything  about  one 
another's  point  of  view." 

[135] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

President  Hadley's  views  carry  weight  with 
all  thinking  men,  and  the  article  from  which 
this  sentence  is  taken  is  excellent  and  timely.  It 
seems  to  us,  however,  that  in  this  quotation  the 
exact  reverse  of  what  is  stated  is  true.  Instead 
of  "The  failure  of  the  different  nations  to 
understand  anything  about  one  another's  point 
of  view,"  it  was  because  they  did  understand 
"one  another's  point  of  view"  so  perfectly, 
that  a  peaceful  solution  was  impossible.  If 
this  is  true  no  one  can  plead  the  ignorance  of 
the  belligerents  as  a  reason  for  being  neutral. 
It  is  just  this  fact,  viz. :  that  the  opposing 
"points  of  view"  were  so  clearly  understood, 
that  caused  the  war,  and  explains  the  intensity, 
bitterness  and  determination  with  which  it  is 
carried  on.  Never  was  an  issue  joined  better 
understood  by  the  contestants,  or  more  con- 
cisely stated,  or  more  scientifically  planned  and 
pursued  by  at  least  one  of  the  belligerents. 

For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
almost  the  entire  body  of  diplomatic  corre- 
spondence preceding  the  war  is  by  each  bellig- 
erent officially  published  to  the  world.  In  this 
correspondence  "one  another's  point  of  view" 
is  made  perfectly  clear.  If  any  attempt  was 
made  to  darken  counsel  it  was  promptly  ex- 
posed by  an  opponent. 

It  is  true  the  common  people  in  Germany  did 
not  understand  the  situation.  They  were  told 
and  believed  that  hostile  armies  had  reached 
their  borders  and  were  about  to  destroy  their 

[136] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

country,  and  in  obedience  to  orders  they  flew 
to  arms  to  repel  the  imaginary  invaders.  The 
Kaiser,  however,  and  his  whole  militaristic 
brood  of  advisers  knew  better.  Add  to  this  the 
war  propaganda  carried  on  for  a  generation 
by  the  government,  by  the  military  clique 
headed  by  35,000  army  officers,  by  the  univer- 
sities in  which  militarism  is  a  part  of  the 
curriculum  and  by  the  schools  in  which  the  chil- 
dren are  taught  that  the  chief  end  of  man  is 
to  glorify  war  and  enjoy  it  forever. 

Let  us  contrast  some  of  these  conflicting 
'  'points  of  view"  and  see  if  they  are  hard  to 
be  understood. 

Germany,  through  her  representatives,  has 
for  many  years  been  declaring  that  "War  is 
a  good  thing";  England  on  the  other  hand 
declares  that  ''War  is  hell."  Is  there  any- 
thing obscure  about  these  "points  of  view"? 
Germany  declares  that  "Might  makes  right"; 
England  replies  that  "Right  makes  might." 
Germany  declares  that  ' '  Small  nations  have  no 
right  to  live";  England  replies  that  "Small 
nations  have  the  same  right  to  live  as  large 
nations."  Germany  says  a  treaty  is  only  a 
"scrap  of  paper";  England  says,  "A  treaty 
is  a  solemn  pledge  that  must  be  kept."  Ger- 
many says,  "Necessity  knows  no  law";  Eng- 
land replies, ' '  Necessity  cannot  violate  the  laws 
of  justice  and  humanity."  Germany  says, 
"We  will  fulfill  our  destiny  which  is  to  rule 
the  world";  and  again  the  Kaiser  says,  "In 

[137] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

the  German  dwells  that  conquering  power 
which  will  open  the  world  to  him";  England 
replies,  "You  shall  not  conquer  or  rule  the 
British  Empire." 

We  could  fill  page  after  page  with  similar 
contrasting  declarations.  They  were  uttered, 
not  in  the  midst  of  "blind  rage  and  passion," 
but  in  a  time  of  profound  peace.  Do  they  pre- 
sent a  ' '  point  of  view ' '  difficult  to  understand  % 
On  the  contrary,  in  every  one  of  these  con- 
trasts, the  "point  of  view"  is  clear  and  dis- 
tinct, and  it  is  because  the  belligerents  do 
understand  them  and  perceive  that  they  are  so 
absolutely  opposite  and  irreconcilable,  that  the 
survival  of  one  means  the  death  of  the  other, 
that  they  have  referred  them  to  the  arbitra- 
ment of  the  sword. 

Substantially  the  same  contrasts  exist  be- 
tween the  "point  of  view"  of  Russia,  France 
and  Servia,  on  the  one  hand  and  those  of  Ger- 
many on  the  other.  Austria's  "point  of  view" 
was  to  reduce  Servia  to  a  state  of  vassalage; 
Servia 's  "point  of  view"  was  to  maintain  her 
independence.  Never  were  "points  of  view" 
more  distinctly  stated  or  better  understood  by 
all  parties. 

If  Americans  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that 
the  above  are  authentic  quotations  from  lead- 
ing German  officials  and  writers,  let  them  con- 
sider how  exactly  the  illegal  acts  and  revolting 
cruelties  practiced  by  the  Germans  in  this  war 
tally  with  the  barbarous  and  brutal  principles 

[138] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

avowed  in  these  contrasted  declarations.  Pres- 
ident Hadley  well  said,  "The  outward  acts  of 
violence  are  but  the  symptoms  of  the  nation's 
mental  state." 

If  it  appears  that  the  "mental  state"  of  each 
belligerent  nation  was  thoroughly  understood 
by  the  others,  then  there  is  no  ground  for  an 
attitude  of  neutrality  based  on  the  assumption 
that  the  belligerents  were  ignorant  of  "one 
another's  point  of  view." 

Sympathetic  Neutrality 

In  international  law  neutrality  is  refraining 
from  giving  material  aid  to  either  of  the  oppos- 
ing belligerents.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  opinions  of  the  neutral.  In  other 
words,  legal  neutrality  does  not  extend  to  the 
feelings,  thought  or  speech  of  the  neutral  na- 
tion. It  is,  therefore,  an  error  to  say  that  the 
United  States  should  observe  the  spirit  as  well 
as  the  law  of  neutrality. 

The  laiv  of  neutrality  is  one  of  those  mala 
prohibit  a  which  imply,  per  se,  no  moral  obliga- 
tion, while  the  spirit  of  neutrality  goes  behind 
the  law  and  deals  with  its  moral  aspects  and  is 
a  matter  of  conscience.  We  have  already  seen 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  moral  neutrality. 

Our  neutrality  should  be  honest  and  strictly 
enforced  and  in  these  respects  the  course  of 
President  Wilson  is  to  be  heartily  approved. 
What  is  objected  to  is  the  attempt  by  the  Pres- 
ident  and   others   to   import   into   the   simple 

[139] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

international  principle  of  neutrality  ideas  of 
silence  and  other  elements  that  are  not  only 
foreign  to  it,  but  vicious  in  their  nature  and 
mischievous  in  their  consequences. 

A  mighty  nation  of  one  hundred  millions  of 
people  sees  its  own  and  the  laws  of  all  govern- 
ments openly  flouted,  the  peaceable  inhabitants 
of  a  sister  nation  slaughtered  in  cold  blood, 
scores  of  unoffending  merchant  ships  without 
a  moment's  notice  torpedoed  by  pirates  and 
sunk,  carrying  down  men,  women  and  children, 
and  when  witnessing  this  spectacle  of  fiendish 
brutality  and  terrible  suffering  that  curdles 
the  blood  and  fills  us  with  maddening  indigna- 
tion, are  we  to  be  told  that  neutrality  requires 
the  people  to  be  neutral  in  their  thoughts  and 
the  government  to  keep  perfectly  silent?  Sym- 
pathetic neutrality  answers  yes ;  we  answer  no. 

Sympathetic  neutrality  eliminates  all  moral 
considerations.  It  would  see  nothing  wrong  in 
the  attitude  or  acts  of  any  of  the  belligerents. 
It  would  treat  them  all  alike.  It  puts  the  rob- 
ber and  the  robbed,  the  guilty  and  the  innocent, 
in  the  same  catalogue  and  would  extend  sym- 
pathy alike  to  all.  The  position  was  well  illus- 
trated at  a  certain  meeting.  A  resolution  was 
offered  endorsing  Jesus  Christ.  A  brother 
would  not  consent  to  its  passage  unless  a  sec- 
tion was  added  specifying  that  nothing  in  the 
resolution  shall  be  construed  as  reflecting  on 
the  devil. 

Perhaps  the  ablest  advocate  of  sympathetic 

[140] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

neutrality  is  Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan.  In  an 
address  at  Springfield,  Massachusetts,  as  re- 
ported in  the  Republican,  Dr.  Jordan  relieves 
all  the  belligerents  from  the  responsibility  for 
the  war.  He  declared  that  the  attitude  of  the 
United  States  should  be  one  of  "Sympathetic 
neutrality."  He  says,  "No  one  dares  to  claim 
the  credit  for  this  war."  He  has  overlooked 
the  claim  made  in  "The  Truth  About  Ger- 
many" by  eleven  representative  Germans  as 
follows,  "The  Kaiser  had  the  moral  courage 
to  assume  the  responsibility  of  beginning  the 
conflict."  Overwhelming  testimony  to  the 
same  effect  is  presented  in  the  first  chapter 
"Made  in  Germany." 

We  read  again,  "Servia  did  not  start  it." 
"Russia  does  not  seem  to  deserve  the  blame  for 
starting  it. "  "  Hundreds  of  my  German  friends 
have  told  me  that  Germany  did  not  start  it." 
"Belgium  was  not  to  blame  for  the  war." 
"England  is  not  responsible."  "France,  far 
weaker  in  numbers  than  Germany,  did  not  want 
war. ' ' 

According  to  this  view  none  of  the  belliger- 
ents were  to  blame  for  the  war.  Nobody  started 
it !  It  is  a  phenomenon  to  be  classed  with  the 
earthquake,  flood  or  lightning,  as  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  men  and  for  which  they  are  in  no 
wise  responsible.  Does  Dr.  Jordan  or  anybody 
else  really  believe  this?  If  it  is  true,  there  is 
no  question  of  right  or  wrong  involved  any 
more  than  there  would  be  in  a  stroke  of  light- 

[141] 


"Made  in  Germany' 

ning.  If  this  is  true,  if  men  are  not  responsi- 
ble, then  another  war  may  start  itself  at  any 
time  and  human  laws,  peace  organizations, 
or  other  preventive  measures  would  have  no 
more  effect  in  preventing  it  than  in  preventing 
an  earthquake.  Does  any  one  really  believe 
that  men  can  fall  upon  and  murder  their  inno- 
cent neighbors  without  moral  guilt? 

We  appreciate  Dr.  Jordan's  contribution  of 
time  and  talent  to  the  cause  of  peace,  but  we 
firmly  believe  that  men  are  responsible  for  this 
war  and  only  the  dynamic  of  Christian  ethics 
will  ever  make  men  love  peace  and  hate  war. 
Furthermore,  we  think  that  a  group  of  indi- 
viduals forming  a  military  oligarchy  headed 
by  the  Kaiser  believed  in  this  war,  wanted  it, 
prepared  for  it,  started  it,  forced  it  upon  other 
nations,  refused  their  entreaties  to  stop  it,  and 
are  solely  responsible  for  it,  and  should  be  held 
to  a  strict  accountability  at  the  hands  of  out- 
raged law,  justice  and  humanity. 

Dr.  Jordan  says,  "Military  efficiency  caused 
the  ivar."  This  "efficiency"  is  such,  as  we 
shall  see,  that  it  removes  all  responsibility  for 
the  war  from  men  or  nations;  hence  it  is  to 
be  taken  literally  and  not  as  a  figure  of  per- 
sonification. This  brings  no  relief.  "Effi- 
ciency" is  impersonal.  It  has  no  moral  char- 
acter. It  cannot  do  right  or  wrong,  and  is  not, 
therefore,  responsible.  Back  of  "efficiency" 
there  is  ultimate  personality,  intelligence  and 
responsibility. 

[142] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

A  few  days  before  the  war  broke  out,  we 
stood  looking  down  into  the  crater  of  Vesuvius 
already  emitting  jets  of  steam  and  smoke  which 
preceded  the  eruption  a  few  weeks  later.  What 
caused  the  eruption!  Would  Dr.  Jordan  say, 
"volcanic  efficiency"?  But  that  explains  noth- 
ing. " Efficiency"  is  merely  an  agency,  never 
an  agent.  Who  is  behind  "volcanic  efficiency" 
and  the  cause  of  it?  The  answer  is,  the  living 
God.  The  only  alternative  is  atheism  with  its 
dismal  philosophy. 

The  doctrine  that  "military  efficiency" 
caused  the  war  opens  the  way  for  declaring 
that  all  the  belligerents  are  its  innocent  vic- 
tims and  alike  entitled  to  our  sympathy.  This 
is  "sympathetic  neutrality." 

We  cannot  allow  its  advocates  any  monopoly 
of  sympathy.  We  sympathize  with  the  suffer- 
ings of  all  our  fellow  men  whether  friends  or 
foes,  innocent  or  guilty,  and  in  punishment  we 
would  have  "mercy  season  justice,"  but  that 
punishment  must  be  commensurate  with  guilt 
is  ordained  of  God  and  man  as  essential  to  the 
existence  of  society.  Punishment  should  never 
be  inflicted  in  a  revengeful  or  vindictive  spirit, 
but  rather  with  infinite  pity  and  sorrow. 

If  "military  efficiency"  is  to  blame  for  the 
war  it  alone  should  pay  the  penalty.  The  final 
sentence  should  be  that  "military  efficiency" 
pay  a  fine  of  two  billion  dollars  and  stand 
committed  to  imprisonment  until  the  fine  is 
paid  or,  if  the  extreme  penalty  is  imposed  and 

[143] 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

it  were  possible  to  execute  it,  that  "military 
efficiency"  be  hanged  by  the  neck  until  dead. 
Belgium  might  demur  at  the  sentence  but  Ger- 
many would  submit,  if  she  did  not  offer  to  serve 
as  hangman. 

We  do  not  deny  that  "military  efficiency" 
was  an  agency  in  bringing  on  the  war,  although 
it  was  shown  in  the  chapter  on  armaments  that 
wars  were  far  more  numerous  before  than  since 
the  date  of  great  armaments;  what  we  object 
to  is  the  attempt  to  transfer  the  blame  from 
guilty  man  to  his  military  machine.  It  is  as 
if  George  Washington,  when  a  lad  and  taken 
to  task  for  cutting  down  a  cherry  tree,  had 
replied,  "I  ground  my  little  hatchet  and  the 
hatchet  did  it  with  its  sharpened  edge.  I  can- 
not tell  a  lie,  father,  Hatchet  Efficiency  cut 
down  the  tree.  I  did  not  do  it  and  am  in  no 
way  to  blame!" 

The  doctrine  of  "military  efficiency"  as  the 
cause  of  the  war  is  the  handmaid  of  sympa- 
thetic neutrality.  It  is,  however,  not  only  mor- 
ally vicious,  but  a  logical  fallacy  and  a  denial 
of  axiomatic  truth.  It  presents  us  with  a  tre- 
mendous effect  without  any  real  cause.  It 
assures  us  that  eight  or  ten  nations  are  en- 
gaged in  a  war  that  was  never  started  by  any- 
body. We  see  thousands  of  innocent  men, 
women  and  children  murdered,  but  there  is 
no  murderer;  we  see  great  conflagrations  con- 
suming public  buildings  and  houses,  but  there 
is  no  incendiary;    there  are  robberies,  but  no 

[144] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

robbers;  in  a  word,  we  have  in  this  war  the 
most  ghastly  crime  of  the  ages  but  no  criminal. 

This  doctrine  confounds  moral  distinctions 
in  blaming  the  innocent  and  the  guilty  alike. 
For  example,  the  author  says,  "For  several 
years  we  have  seen  the  armed  nations  in  a 
situation  like  that  of  trains  on  converging 
tracks  rushing  at  each  other."  When,  we  ask, 
has  he  seen  little  Belgium  "rushing"  at  Ger- 
many, or  Servia  "rushing"  at  Austria!  By 
what  act  has  France  or  Russia  appeared  like 
a  train  "rushing"  at  Germany?  Can  he  point 
to  a  single  English  train  "rushing"  toward 
Germany!  Dropping  the  figure,  what  the 
world  now  sees  is,  that  for  years,  Germany  has 
been  literally  laying  railroad  tracts  over  barren 
regions,  all  converging  toward  the  frontiers  of 
Belgium  and  Russia,  and  over  these  tracks  she 
is  now  "rushing"  her  trains  loaded  with  troops 
for  aggressive  warfare. 

What  disturbs  us  in  Dr.  Jordan's  "sympa- 
thetic neutrality"  is  its  profound  silence  re- 
specting all  moral  considerations  involved  in 
the  war.  He  dwells  on  the  "folly"  of  war,  its 
"cost"  and  loss  of  human  stock,  but  has  not 
a  word  to  say  about  the  abhorrent  immorality, 
the  infamous  crime  and  detestable  wickedness 
of  the  men  who  brought  on  the  war.  The 
Christian  world  is  thinking  of  the  cries  of  men 
torn  asunder,  writhing  in  agony  and  dying  on 
the  battle-field,  the  cruelties,  sufferings  and 
murders,  the  wrecked  homes  and  hopes,  the 

[145] 


"Made  in  Germany'' 

broken  hearts  that  refuse  to  be  comforted — 
these  are  the  things  the  iniquity  of  which  stirs 
the  blood  of  men  and  moves  the  heart  of  the 
Almighty.  Compared  with  these  all  the  mere 
follies  of  the  world,  all  the  money  on  earth, 
combined  with  all  conceivable  loss,  as  loss  only, 
of  human  stock,  have  not  a  feather's  weight. 
''Sympathetic  neutrality"  led  Dr.  Jordan  to 
say,  "Our  duty  as  a  nation  outside  of  the  con- 
flict is  to  know  the  truth.  It  is  not  for  us  to 
be  pro-France,  pro-German,  or  pro-England. 
We  mitst  not  he  pro  or  anti  anything." 

This  declaration  is  remarkable  for  its  bold- 
ness. It  sweeps  away  at  one  stroke  every 
moral  consideration  involved  in  the  war.  For 
us  there  must  be  no  such  thing  as  justice  or 
injustice,  truth  or  falsehood,  right  or  wrong,  in- 
nocence or  guilt  in  the  beginning,  conducting  or 
ending  of  the  war ;  or  if  these  things  exist,  we 
must  not  be  for  or  against  them!  "We  must 
not  be  pro  or  anti  anything!"  We  might  dis- 
miss this  dictum  with  the  words  of  Emerson, 
"Immoral  conclusions  spare  us  much  trouble 
in  examining  the  argument."  We  will,  how- 
ever, give  briefly  a  few  reasons  for  rejecting 
this  position. 

(1)  It  is  inconsistent  to  say  in  one  breath, 
"It  is  our  duty  to  .  .  .  know  the  truth,"  and 
then  when  we  have  found  it  to  say,  "We  must 
not  be  for  or  against  it."  This  would  be  "to 
hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness." 

(2)  The  strictest  construction  of  the  inter- 

[146] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

national  law  of  neutrality  makes  no  such  de- 
mand. Neutrality  refuses  material  aid  to 
either  side.  It  does  not  require  neutrality  in 
thought,  feeling  or  speech  either  on  the  part 
of  the  government  or  citizens. 

(3)  A  still  higher  authority  has  this  to  say 
about  pseudo  neutrality.  "He  that  is  not  for 
me  is  against  me."  That  is,  he  that  is  not  for 
the  truth  is  against  it.  "Abhor  that  which  is 
evil,  cleave  to  that  which  is  good."  "Woe  to 
them  that  call  evil  good  and  good  evil." 

(4)  As  moral  beings  men  cannot  be  indif- 
ferent to  good  and  evil.  When  they  have 
decided  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong,  con- 
science demands  that  they  be  for  the  one  and 
against  the  other. 

(5)  In  saying  without  qualification  that, 
"We  should  not  be  pro  or  anti  anything,"  the 
author  virtually  says  we  should  not  be  pro- 
God  or  anti-Satan;  pro-murder  or  anti-mur- 
der ;  pro-war  or  anti-war ;  and  yet  he  declares 
himself  to  be  strongly  pro-peace  and  anti- 
war ! 

This  declaration  staggers  us.  How  shall  we 
account  for  it!  It  seems  to  us  that  it  is  due 
to  mental  and  moral  astigmatism,  to  a  blinding 
partiality  for  Germany.  If  he  merely  intended 
to  emphasize  the  importance  of  our  neutrality, 
his  language  should  have  stopped  short  of  lan- 
guage that  carries  him  almost  if  not  quite  into 
the  camp  of  German  apologists,  whose  incon- 
sistencies, assumptions  and  sophistries  are  so 

[147] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

patent  and  puerile  as  to  excite  wonder  and 
disgust  in  the  American  mind. 

The  Responsibility  of  the  United  States 
Respecting  the  Wab 

The  vastness  of  our  territory,  population 
and  wealth,  the  virility,  liberty,  intelligence  and 
enterprise  of  the  people,  and  above  all,  the  high 
standards  of  religion  and  morality  that  pre- 
vail and  will  be  maintained,  in  spite  of  tem- 
porary drawbacks,  combine  to  make  us  as  a 
nation  the  foremost  power  in  the  world. 

No  higher  compliment  was  ever  paid  us  than 
the  recent  statement  of  Earl  Grey  in  London; 
he  said,  "The  present  conflict  probably  would 
never  have  taken  place,  had  the  policy  of  Amer- 
ican pacifists,  that  the  signatory  nations  to  the 
Hague  conventions  should  undertake  collective 
responsibility  for  the  enforcement  of  interna- 
tional laws,  been  adopted."  He  further  says, 
* 'The  neutral  powers  who  signed  the  Hague 
conventions  missed  a  great  opportunity  by  not 
protesting  against  the  violation  of  the  inter- 
national regulations  that  occurred  in  this  war, 
which  probably  ivould  have  led  to  a  diminution 
of  its  horrors." 

The  neutral  powers  not  only  "missed  a  great 
opportunity,"  they  neglected  a  duty.  This  is 
the  point  to  be  emphasized.  This  is  where  the 
United  States  has  signally  failed.  Our  posi- 
tion among  the  nations,  the  fact  that  we  pro- 
posed at   the  Hague  the  very  measure   that 

[148] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

might  have  prevented  this  crime,  show  that  we 
were  alive  to  the  importance  of  maintaining 
the  international  laws  of  war,  and  the  fact  that 
we  signed  the  conventions,  thereby  agreeing  to 
uphold  these  laws,  renders  our  failure  to  pro- 
test the  more  culpable  and  humiliating. 

Had  we  stoutly  protested  at  the  outset  of 
the  war,  other  neutral  nations  would  in  all 
probability  have  followed  our  example,  for  they 
look  to  us  to  take  the  lead  in  maintaining 
neutral  rights. 

The  one  neutral  right  above  all  others  in 
importance  is  to  have  the  international  laws  of 
war  observed  by  all  the  belligerents.  Great 
indeed  is  the  responsibility  resting  upon  the 
United  States  in  this  world  crisis  to  maintain 
the  integrity  and  sovereignty  of  law.  She  owes 
it  to  herself  and  to  her  basal  principle  that 
Liberty  is  obedience  to  law.  She  owes  it  to  the 
belligerents  tempted  to  violate  international 
law  in  this  awful  struggle,  and  she  owes  it  to 
the  world  to  protest  against  every  infraction 
of  those  laws  that,  only  after  centuries  of 
humane  and  Christian  effort,  prompted  by  the 
highest  aspirations  and  hopes  of  the  race  for 
unity,  brotherhood  and  love,  have  crystalized 
into  international  law,  which  we  should  keep 
constantly  in  mind,  is  the  common  law  of  the 
land. 

The  failure  to  protest  against  the  infraction 
of  this  law,  if  as  Earl  Grey  says,  it  might  have 
mitigated  the  horrors  of  war,  is  one  of  those 

[149] 


"Made  in  Germany* 

blunders  that  is  worse  than  a  crime.  It  makes 
the  United  States  responsible  for  deeds  of 
revolting  barbarism.  It  arraigns  us  before 
the  grand  jury  of  the  world  for  international 
infidelity.  It  is  a  betrayal  of  humanity  with  the 
kiss  of  diplomacy,  and  the  denial  of  Christ  in 
the  house  of  his  friends.  It  is  treason  against 
international  morality  and  makes  us  particeps 
criminis  in  the  invasion  of  Belgium  and  in  all 
the  horrors  that  have  followed. 

It  may  help  us  to  see  ourselves  as  others  see 
us  to  quote  the  Toronto  "Globe"  as  reported 
in  the  Outlook:  "There  is  something  morally 
wrong  with  the  man,  whether  Canadian  or 
American,  who  can  picture  the  indescribable 
sufferings  of  the  Belgian  people,  without  a 
sense  of  rage  and  indignation  at  those  respon- 
sible for  that  ruthless  and  calmly  deliberated 
crime.  There  would  be  something  wrong,  cow- 
ardly and  criminal  in  the  Canadian  nation  if, 
under  the  circumstances,  Canada  did  not  at 
once  and  to  the  last  power,  strike  for  Belgium's 
defence  and  for  the  defence  of  innocence  and 
the  preservation  of  honor  among  the  nations. 
More  than  that,  the  civilized  world  will  convict 
the  American  Republic  of  wrong  and  of  cow- 
ardice and  of  complicity  in  the  worst  interna- 
tional crime  since  Napoleon's  unpardoned  of- 
fence, if  that  free  nation,  itself  the  heir  of  all 
the  ages  of  struggle  for  liberty,  does  not  soon, 
and  in  terms  the  world  will  understand,  make 
straight  and  solemn  protest,  in  the  name  of 

[150] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

international  law,  to  the  world's  court  of  pub- 
lic opinion  against  Germany's  violation  of  in- 
ternational agreements,  to  which  the  United 
States  was  a  pledged  party.  ...  A  nation  that 
loves  righteousness  is  under  compulsion  to 
adjure  iniquity." 

The  doctrine  that  neutrality,  under  interna- 
tional law,  does  not  permit  of  protests  when 
the  rights  of  humanity  are  violated,  while  it 
permits  of  protests  when  the  rights  of  com- 
merce are  violated,  is  a  piece  of  sophistical 
depravity. 

The  United  States,  notwithstanding  her  neu- 
trality, has  repeatedly  protested  against  inter- 
ference with  our  trade.  On  what  ground?  Be- 
cause such  interference  was  in  violation  of 
international  law.  If  such  violation  calls  for 
protest  in  one  case,  why  not  in  another?  It 
is  replied  that  it  is  our  duty  to  protect  Amer- 
ican property  and  lives,  but  not  the  property 
and  lives  of  other  nations.  The  first  clause  is 
right ;  the  last  is  wrong. 

By  the  Hague  conventions  we  made  a  treaty 
with  other  nations,  that  we  would  insist  upon 
the  observance  of  certain  rules  and  regulations, 
in  case  of  war,  for  the  protection  of  the  citizens 
of  belligerent  nations.  In  other  words,  we 
have  agreed  to  help  protect  the  lives  and  prop- 
erty of  other  nations.  The  United  States  and 
Germany  both  signed  that  treaty. 

Travel,  commerce  and  migrations  have  knit 
all  nations  together.    When  one  suffers  all  suf- 

[  151  ] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

fer.  The  principle  that  no  man  liveth  unto 
himself  is  equally  true  of  nations.  They  are 
one  family  under  the  shelter  of  international 
law.  The  attempt,  under  the  plea  of  neutrality, 
to  escape  the  obligation  of  this  law  to  prevent 
the  sufferings  of  our  fellow  men,  and  then  to 
claim  its  benefits  for  the  protection  of  our 
commerce,  is  dishonorable. 

Entirely  apart  from  the  Hague  conventions, 
it  should  be  noted  that  international  laws  have 
a  binding  force  as  well  as  treaties.  Unless, 
therefore,  we  are  to  adopt  the  perfidious  doc- 
trine that  a  treaty  is  only  "a  scrap  of  paper," 
we  are  in  honor  bound  to  protest  against  every 
violation  of  international  law,  and  the  failure 
to  do  so  is  likely  to  be  ascribed  to  diplomatic 
pusillanimity  and  moral  cowardice. 

Many  who  object  to  protests,  save  such  as 
relate  to  property,  enlarge  upon  the  great  op- 
portunity that  will  come  to  President  Wilson 
as  mediator  between  the  warring  nations.  It 
is  an  unfortunate  view.  It  suggests  that  by 
acquiescing  in  the  lawlessness  and  brutalities 
of  the  war,  the  nations  will  be  more  likely  to 
accept  the  mediatorial  offices  of  our  President. 
This  is  a  humiliating  thought.  It  would  be 
doing  evil  that  good  might  come.  President 
Wilson  is  a  high-souled  man,  but  his  idea  of 
neutrality  has  no  sanction  in  international  law. 
It  is  strained.  It  is  immoral  and  impossible. 
It  has  made  the  United  States,  more  than  any 
other  neutral  nation,   responsible  for  crimes 

[152] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

and  barbarities  that  shock  the  world,  and  leave 
an  indelible  stain  upon  the  pages  of  history. 
It  has  encouraged  a  course  of  international 
lawlessness  that  is  now  coming  home  to  plague 
us  in  the  destruction  of  our  commerce  and  in 
endangering  the  lives  of  our  citizens.  Under 
the  guise  of  neutrality,  we  have  been  playing 
fast  and  loose  with  the  principles  of  morality 
and  we  must  now  take  the  consequences.  Such 
has  been  the  result  of  the  failure  to  protest 
against  the  violation  of  international  law. 

"VVe  are  not  criticising  the  President's  polit- 
ical neutrality.  This  he  has  maintained  with 
signal  ability.  It  is  his  attempt  at  moral  neu- 
trality that  has  contributed  to  the  horrors  of 
the  war  and  involved  him  in  serious  moral 
entanglements.  For  example,  it  leads  him  to 
say,  "No  nation  is  fit  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
any  other  nation."  Has  he  not  sat  "in  judg- 
ment" upon  the  acts  of  England  and  Germanjr 
in  repeated  protests  ?  When  he  reviewed  Ger- 
many's  submarine  policy,  protested  against  it, 
and  threatened  to  hold  Germany  to  strict  ac- 
count for  the  loss  of  American  ships  or  lives, 
did  he  do  this  without  exercising  any  judgment 
in  the  matter,  on  the  ground  that  "No  nation 
is  fit  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  any  other 
nation?" 

The  President  is  even  more  unfortunate  in 
saying,  ' '  Our  whole  duty  is  summed  up  in  the 
motto,  'America  first!'  "  On  the  contrary,  our 
whole  duty  is  summed  up  in  the  motto,  Right- 

[153] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

eousness  first!  Before  America,  comes  justice 
and  humanity.  ''America  first"  is  next  of  kin 
to  the  abominable  motto,  "My  country,  right 
or  wrong."  The  President  ignores  what  is 
fundamental  and  eternal  in  human  relations 
and  substitutes  selfishness.  Our  religion  puts 
God  our  Father  and  man  our  brother  first.  The 
world's  highest  genius  said,  "Think  of  thyself 
last,"  and  this  note  of  altruism  is  echoed  on 
every  page  of  the  New  Testament. 

The  President  involves  himself  in  another 
entanglement  in  saying,  "The  basis  of  our  neu- 
trality is  sympathy  for  mankind."  How  can 
this  be  true?  How  can  one  say  in  the  same 
breath,  "Our  whole  duty  is  summed  up  in  the 
motto,  'America  first,'  "  and  then,  "the  basis 
of  our  neutrality  is  sympathy  for  mankind"? 
Selfishness  and  sympathy  are  not  traveling 
companions.  No,  the  basis  of  our  neutrality  is 
not  "sympathy"  but  selfishness. 

When  in  defiance  of  our  treaties  and  laws, 
peaceful  Belgium  is  invaded,  her  cities  burned 
and  her  inhabitants  slaughtered  in  cold  blood, 
it  is  not  a  neutrality  of  sympathy,  but  a  neu- 
trality of  selfishness  that  freezes  the  admin- 
istration's heart  and  seals  its  lips  against  these 
outrages. 

The  greatest  opportunity  of  President  "Wil- 
son's administration  and  of  his  life  lay  open 
to  him,  and  may  not  yet  be  closed, —  the  oppor- 
tunity to  place  this  great  nation  at  the  head  of 
the  honor  roll  of  nations,  by  sounding  the  trum- 

[154] 


Rights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

pet  call  of  law  and  justice,  of  humanity  and 
righteousness.  Like  the  shot  at  Concord  it 
would  be  heard  round  the  world  and  remem- 
bered through  all  time. 

Our  President  may  not  be  invited  to  act  as 
mediator.  If  the  feeling  should  gather  strength 
that  he  has  been  seeking  the  personal  honor 
and  glory  of  such  an  office,  and  has  sacrificed 
moral  convictions  in  the  interest  of  his  candi- 
dacv,  he  will  not  be  invited  to  serve  as 
mediator. 

The  one  thing  that  the  United  States  and  all 
neutral  nations  should  do,  and  do  at  once,  is 
to  enter  a  strong  and  solemn  protest  against 
the  violation  of  the  rules  of  war  as  prescribed 
by  international  law. 

The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  in 
Boston,  December  7,  1914,  by  a  body  of  min- 
isters whose  high  standing  would  command 
appreciation  by  their  fellow  citizens  every- 
where. They  express  so  well  the  sentiments  of 
the  American  people  that  we  quote  them  in 
extenso. 

Whereas,  by  the  Articles  of  the  Second 
Hague  Convention,  it  was  expressly  stipulated 
as  follows: — 

Article  I.  The  territory  of  neutral  powers 
is  inviolable. 

Article  II.  Belligerents  are  forbidden  to 
move  troops  or  convoys  of  either  munitions  of 
war  or  supplies  across  the  territory  of  a  neu- 
tral power. 

[155] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

Article  X.  The  fact  of  a  neutral  power  re- 
sisting even  by  force  attempts  to  violate  its 
neutrality  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  hostile  act. 

Article  L.  No  general  penalty,  pecuniary  or 
otherwise,  shall  be  inflicted  upon  the  population 
on  account  of  the  acts  of  individuals,  for  which 
they  cannot  be  regarded  as  jointly  and  sev- 
erally responsible. 

And  Whereas  it  appears  that  Germany  and 
the  United  States  of  America,  with  other  great 
powers,  were  signatory  to  these  conventions 
and,  therefore,  partners  in  creating  them,  and 
in  thus  creating  and  signing  pledged  themselves 
to  use  at  least  all  possible  moral  force  for  the 
enforcing  of  such  conventions, 

And  "Whereas  it  appears  that  Germany  has 
violated  each  of  the  above,  if  not  others  as  well, 
in  that  she  has  violated  the  neutrality  of  Bel- 
gium, has  transported  troops,  etc.,  across  her 
neutral  territory,  has  punished  her  resistance 
as  a  hostile  act  and  taken  vengeance  on  her  as 
though  she  were  an  enemy  and  a  belligerent, 
has  at  Vise,  Louvain  and  Brussels  exacted  se- 
vere penalties,  both  in  money  and  life  for  the 
acts  of  individuals; 

Therefore  be  it  Resolved,  That  we  regret 
exceedingly  that  after  a  period  of  four  months 
no  remonstrance  has  been  issued  from  the 
United  States  against  this  breach  of  faith,  not 
only  with  a  neutral  power  but  also  with  the 
other  nations  who  were  partners  with  her, 
leaving  it  possible  for  history  to  judge  that 

[156] 


Bights  and  Duties  of  Neutrality 

we    look   upon    those    conventions    as    "mere 
scraps  of  paper," 

And  be  it  further  Resolved,  That  we  urge 
and,  so  far  as  we  have  the  right,  demand  that 
our  representatives  and  the  authorities  upon 
whom  such  duties  devolve,  shall  make  all  neces- 
sary investigation  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the 
facts  stated  above,  and  if  they  shall  be  found 
to  be  true,  that  the  United  States  of  America 
shall  immediately  thereafter  file  with  the  Ger- 
man Empire,  and  the  other  nations  who  were 
signatory  to  the  Articles  of  the  Hague  Con- 
vention, our  positive  remonstrance  against  the 
violation  of  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  and  this 
violation  of  the  partnership  with  our  nation 
in  that  solemn  Treaty. 


[157] 


CHAPTER  V 
GERMAN   CULTURE 
Culture  and  the  War 

What  lias  culture  to  do  with  war?  Much 
every  way  in  Germany.  To  an  American,  cul- 
ture and  war  seem  unrelated.  One  might  as 
well  talk  of  chemistry  and  war  or  mathematics 
and  war.  In  Germany,  however,  culture  plays 
an  important  part  in  the  war.  The  highest 
authority  declares  that  the  war  is  waged  in 
behalf  of  culture.  Bernhardi  says,  "The  Ger- 
mans must,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  inter- 
ests of  other  peoples,  fight  their  way  to 
predominance  and  force  upon  humanity  their 
culture  and  spirit." 

"Only  war,"  writes  Professor  Munsterberg, 
"can  adjust  the  power  of  countries  to  the 
changing  stages  of  their  inner  development 
(culture)." 

The  Kaiser  speaks  as  follows:  "Only  the 
German  is  left  to  defend  and  above  all  to  cul- 
tivate great  conceptions." 

"Germany  and  the  Next  War,"  by  Bern- 
hardi, says,  "War  is  the  greatest  factor  in  the 
furtherance  of  culture." 

A  learned  professor  writes,  "Germany  has 

[158] 


German  Culture 

the  highest  culture  and  is  entitled  to  the  he- 
gemony of  the  continent. ' ' 

Professor  Rudolf  Eueken  bitterly  reproaches 
England  for  having  made  war  on  German  cul- 
ture, which  demanded  "The  necessary  advance 
through  Belgian  territory."  This  "advance" 
was  in  behalf  of  her  ' '  culture, ' '  which  she  now 
proposes  to  force  upon  the  world. 

Dr.  Stanton  Coit  of  London,  a  great  admirer 
of  German  culture,  declares  that,  "Germany 
erred  in  attempting  to  spread  her  culture  by 
the  bayonet." 

These  and  scores  of  similar  statements  would 
seem  to  show  that  the  one  great  object  of  Ger- 
many in  beginning  this  war  was  to  force  upon 
the  world  her  culture.  "We  shall  offer  some 
suggestions  on  this  point  at  the  conclusion  of 
this  chapter. 

Culture  Defined 

America  knows  nothing  of  any  such  culture 
as  is  implied  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs.  In 
America  culture  means,  "enlightenment  ac- 
quired by  mental  and  moral  training;  refine- 
ment in  manners  and  taste. ' ' 

Dr.  Coit  says,  "No  nation  is  so  lacking  in 
a  kind  of  culture  that  means  delicacy  of  taste 
as  Germany. ' '  In  Germany  culture  means  ' '  the 
employment  of  all  the  devices  of  man  for  the 
benefit  of  the  community. ' '  In  addition  to  art, 
literature,  philosophy  and  language,  special 
emphasis  is  laid  upon  physical  and  mechanical 

[159] 


"Made  in  Germany'' 

science  and  its  application  to  industry.  It  sus- 
tains intimate  relations  with  beer,  sausage, 
potatoes  and  rye  bread.  With  the  Germans 
efficiency  is  culture.  In  America  culture  is  the 
flower  garden  of  the  farm;  in  Germany  it  is 
the  farm  itself. 

Professor  Rudolf  Eucken,  a  foremost  ethical 
philosopher  of  Germany,  says,  "To  us  more 
than  to  any  other  people  is  entrusted  the  true 
structure  of  human  existence;  as  an  intelligent 
people  tee  have,  irrespective  of  creed,  worked 
for  soul  depth  in  religion,  for  scientific  thor- 
oughness, for  the  creation  of  independent  per- 
sonality in  our  educational  methods.  .  .  .  All 
this  constitutes  possessions  of  which  mankind 
cannot  be  deprived." 

Notwithstanding  the  vagueness  and  conceit 
of  this  declaration,  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that 
the  " possessions"  or  "goods"  that  constitute 
German  culture  may  all  be  grouped  under  the 
three  heads  of  "Scientific  thoroughness," 
"Soul  Depth  in  religion,"  and  "Independent 
personality  in  educational  methods." 

Scientific  Culture 

"The  whole  realm  of  human  knowledge  has 
been  concentrated  in  the  German  brain."  So 
writes  Bernhardi,  whose  book  has  been  called 
the  Bible  of  Germany.  Any  doubt  from  any 
source  about  this  estimate  of  the  "German 
brain"  would  be,  to  the  German,  only  proof  of 
its  correctness.     We  observe  in  passing,  that 

[160] 


German  Culture 

Bernhardi's  book  lias  so  shocked  the  world, 
outside  of  Germany,  that  German  apologists, 
as  represented  by  Dr.  Bernhard  Dernberg,  now 
assure  us  that  "Bernhardi  was  retired  from 
the  service  just  because  his  writings  did  not 
meet  with  the  approval  of  his  superiors. ' '  We 
reply  first,  that  no  evidence  is  offered  in  sup- 
port of  this  assertion;  second,  Bernhardi  has 
passed  the  age  of  sixty-five  when  army  officers 
are  retired;  third,  and  quite  conclusive,  in  the 
beginning  and  prosecution  of  the  war,  the  Ger- 
man army  has  defied  the  legal  and  humane 
rules  of  war,  and  adopted  to  the  letter  the 
cruel,  brutal  and  grossly  immoral  principles 
and  practices  prescribed  by  Bernhardi. 

Falling  off  a  few  points  from  Bernhardi's 
unique  estimate  of  the  ''German  brain,"  Dr. 
Dernberg  says,  "Germany  stands  in  the  first 
rank  of  applied  science."  Competent  judges 
deny  this.  We  have  never  observed  from  any 
source  a  disposition  to  detract  from  Germany's 
scientific  culture.  On  the  contrary,  America 
at  least  has  been  proud  of  Germany's  attain- 
ments in  this  respect.  We  have  rejoiced  at 
the  way  in  which  she  has  applied  scientific 
principles  to  industry  and  labor.  We  have  un- 
feigned admiration  for  her  system  of  municipal 
administration,  her  protection  of  the  people  by 
means  of  insurance  against  accident,  sickness, 
old  age  and  widowhood.  In  these  and  other 
respects,  we  recognize  Germany's  "scientific 
thoroughness."    It  is  conceded  that  Germany 

[161] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

excels  in  scientific  organization,  in  method  and 
in  plodding  application.  The  German  mind, 
however,  is  not  original,  inventive  or  acute; 
but  slow,  profound  and  unyielding.  This  ac- 
counts for  its  painstaking  thoroughness. 

We  Americans  have  a  habit  of  admiring  any- 
thing from  abroad.  Label  an  article  "  im- 
ported" and  its  price  was  enhanced  even 
though  it  was  inferior  to  the  home-made  arti- 
cle. This  habit  was  not  limited  to  material 
goods,  but  extended  to  all  departments  of  cul- 
ture in  art,  science  and  literature.  The  fact 
that  anything  was  from  abroad  was  accepted 
as  evidence  of  superiority.  But  the  tables  are 
now  turned.  This  war  has  opened  our  eyes. 
We  begin  to  see  that  American  " possessions" 
or  " goods,"  in  respect  to  those  ideals  that 
alone  make  life  worth  living,  are  far  superior 
to  those  of  Germany. 

We  have  said  that  the  assertion  that  "Ger- 
many stands  in  the  first  rank  in  applied  sci- 
ence" is  disputed  by  competent  judges.  In 
applied  science  respecting  improvements  in 
comfort,  convenience  and  conditions  of  life, 
Germany  is  far  behind  France,  England  or  the 
United  States.  The  superiority  of  German  cul- 
ture so  loudly  proclaimed  and  widely  accepted, 
is  now  seen  to  exist  quite  largely  in  the  over- 
weening conceit  and  braggadocio  illustrated  in 
the  assertion  that,  "All  knowledge  is  concen- 
trated in  the  German  brain. ' ' 

An  illuminating  joint  article  by  Dr.  Agnes 

[162] 


German  Culture 

Eepplier  and  Dr.  J.  William  White,  published 
in  the  Boston  Herald,  affirms  that  neither  in 
"chemistry,  electrics  or  medicine,  can  the  Ger- 
man claim  to  superiority  be  admitted  or  even 
considered.  .  .  .  But  what  of  the  telephone, 
the  telegraph,  the  steam-boat,  the  automobile, 
the  railroad,  the  phonograph,  the  electric  light, 
the  sewing  machine,  the  photograph,  the  reaper 
and  binder?  " 

The  same  article  declares  that  "Germany 
borrows  from  others. ' '  In  all  these  directions 
and  many  more,  including  even  the  latest  in- 
struments of  war,  "the  submarine,  the  torpedo, 
the  revolving  or  disappearing  gun,  the  machine 
gun,  the  turreted  ship,  Germany  has  been  the 
exploiter  of  discoveries  or  inventions  of  other 
races." 

Antiseptic  surgery,  pronounced  the  greatest 
discovery  of  modern  times,  is  due,  as  this 
article  says,  to  France  and  England,  while 
anaesthesia  is  due  to  America.  All  the  com- 
bined discoveries  of  Germany  in  medicine  can- 
not equal  the  benefits  due  to  anaesthesia  and 
antiseptics. 

No  less  an  authority  than  Professor  John 
Trowbridge,  President  of  the  American  Acad- 
emy of  Arts  and  Sciences,  says  in  the  Atlantic 
Monthly,  that  Germany  now  occupies  only  the 
third  place  in  science.  He  concedes  Germany's 
leadership  in  organic  chemistry,  but  in  "phys- 
ical science,  mathematics  and  physical  chemis- 
try"   that   make    demands   upon   the   highest 

[163] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

powers  of  the  mind,  England  is  assigned  the 
first  place. 

Eoger  Bacon  was  the  founder  of  physics ;  he 
also  first  outlined  the  principle  of  the  telescope. 
Young's  "undulatory  theory  of  light  was  one 
of  the  greatest  contributions  ever  made  to  sci- 
ence." Rumford  showed  that  "heat  was  its 
exact  equivalent  in  motion."  Faraday  was 
"the  father  of  the  great  practical  employments 
of  electricity."  "It  is  a  fact  that  the  great 
physical  hypotheses  have  been  Anglo-Saxon  in 
origin. ' ' 

It  is  claimed  that  scientific  culture  cannot 
flourish  in  an  era  of  militarism.  Germany's 
greatest  scientific  progress  was  in  a  time  of 
comparative  peace  between  1840  and  1870. 
Professor  Trowbridge  says  that  since  Sedan, 
Germany  has  fallen  into  third  place.  During 
this  period,  however,  England  contributed 
Maxwell 's  electric  dynamic  theory  of  light,  and 
England  and  France  laid  the  foundations  of 
the  new  great  subject  of  radio-activity.  Ger- 
many's discovery  of  the  X-rays  he  calls  "a 
fortuitous  accident."  None  of  her  discoveries, 
however,  equal  Lord  Rayleigh's  construction 
of  argon.  Francis  Bacon  established  the  doc- 
trine of  inductive  reasoning.  Newton  discov- 
ered the  law  of  gravitation.  "In  scientific  cul- 
ture, exemplified  by  the  use  of  the  imagination, 
by  mathematical  knowledge  and  by  philosoph- 
ical insight  leading  to  the  performance  of  cru- 
cial experiments,  Great  Britain  stands  first." 

[164] 


German  Culture 

The  new  handbook,  " Who's  Who  in  Sci- 
ence," gives  the  number  of  scientists  in  the 
different  countries  as  a  test  of  civilization. 
The  United  States  has  1,678;  England,  1,472; 
Germany,  1,280;  France,  423;  Austria-Hun- 
gary, 236;  Italy,  215;  Switzerland,  214;  Hol- 
land, 155 ;  Sweden,  109 ;  Russia,  97 ;  Denmark, 
94;  Belgium,  90;  Norway,  88;  Portugal,  49; 
Spain,  41.  The  small  countries  of  Western 
Europe  make  relatively  the  best  showing. 

The  number  of  scientists  to  each  million  of 
the  population  is  given  as  follows: — Switzer- 
land, 155;  Sweden,  109;  Russia,  97;  Den- 
mark, 94;  Belgium,  90;  Norway,  88;  Por- 
tugal, 49;  Spain,  41.  The  small  countries  of 
Western  Europe  make  relatively  the  best 
showing. 

If  these  figures  are  correct  or  approximately 
so,  it  will  be  seen  that  Germany  occupies  only 
sixth  place  in  rank. 

Professor  Warren  Fite  who  was  a  student 
in  Germany,  from  personal  knowledge  says,  in 
the  New  York  Nation,  as  quoted  by  The  Spring- 
field (Massachusetts)  Republican,  ''German 
science  is  a  gift  of  moderate  value  .  .  .  and 
of  rather  bourgeois  intellectual  quality.  .  .  . 
Germans  are  the  newly  lettered,  the  newly 
sophisticated  and  alas!  the  newly  rich."  He 
compares  Berlin  with  Chicago  and  says  the  lat- 
ter is  not  so  proud  of  its  "night  life."  Others 
tell  us  that  this  "night  life"  now  eclipses  Paris 
in  its  "stodgy  imitators."     "In  the  graduate 

[165] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

school,  the  Ph.D.,  and  the  laboratory  of  re- 
search, the  influence  of  German  culture  has 
been  somewhat  devastating."  The  only  de- 
partment of  culture  in  which  he  concedes  Ger- 
man supremacy  is  music.  The  Eepublican 
says,  "He  might  have  added  that  creative 
supremacy  in  music  has  now  to  be  shared  with 
the  French  and  the  Russians."  " Those  Amer- 
icans," says  Professor  Trowbridge,  "who  are 
loudest  in  their  praise  of  German  culture  often 
argue  from  an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the 
historv  of  science." 

In  applied  science  the  United  States  is  mak- 
ing rapid  progress.  Neither  Germany  nor  any 
other  country  can  point  to  such  a  monumental 
work  of  sanitary  science  as  is  presented  by 
the  Panama  canal.  A  vast  region  of  tropical 
marsh,  swarming  with  disease-carrying  mos- 
quitoes and  reeking  with  poisonous  miasma, 
that  has  claimed  tens  of  thousands  of  human 
lives,  was  converted  by  the  United  States  into 
one  of  the  most  sanitary  and  salubrious  places 
in  the  world. 

In  the  United  States,  which  has  given  little 
attention  to  armaments,  has  just  been  com- 
pleted the  largest  dreadnought  and  the  largest 
cannon  in  the  world.  The  latter  is  fifty-six 
feet  in  length  and  throws  a  shell  weighing 
twenty-four  hundred  pounds  a  distance  of 
twenty-one  miles.  It  is  for  the  defence  of  the 
Panama  canal.  We  are  not,  however,  proud 
of  it.    We  will  not  boast  of  it  and  if  it  should 

[166] 


German  Culture 

ever  be  used  against  an  enemy  we  would  have 
it  draped  in  mourning. 

Germany  attributes  her  rapid  material  de- 
velopment to  her  own  scientific  efficiency;  but 
the  facts  abundantly  show  the  truth  of  Profes- 
sor Franklin  H.  Gidding's  assertion  that,  "The 
rapid  material  progress  of  Germany  is  largely 
the  result  of  the  liberal  trade  policy  of  the 
British  Empire." 

It  may  be  that  in  this  brief  comparison  of 
the  scientific  culture  of  Germany  with  that  of 
other  nations,  we  have  not  done  the  former 
full  justice;  but  it  certainly  justifies  us  in 
characterizing  the  claim  that  ' '  The  whole  realm 
of  human  knowledge  has  been  concentrated  in 
the  German  brain"  as  puerile  bombast,  and 
especially  in  regarding  the  claim  that  the  high- 
est scientific  culture  is  a  "sacred  possession" 
entrusted  to  Germany  alone,  and  to  be  forced 
upon  the  nations  by  German  bayonets,  as  a 
piece  of  vanity,  insanity  and  asininity  that  has 
no  counterpart  in  modern  history. 

Religious  and  Moral  Culture 

Another  element  of  culture  in  "the  true 
structure  of  human  existence,"  which  Pro- 
fessor Eucken  says  is  specially  entrusted  to 
Germans,  he  designates  as  "Soul  depth  in 
Religion." 

In  any  intelligent  discussion  there  must  be 
something  agreed  upon  to  start  with.  Just 
as  in  a  race  there  must  be  a  starting  point 

[167] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

common  to  all  the  competitors,  so  in  discussion, 
certain  underlying  principles,  propositions  or 
definitions  must  be  held  in  common  and  agreed 
upon  as  a  starting  point  by  all  disputants. 
For  example,  in  any  discussion  of  religion  it 
must  be  agreed  that  religion  exists,  that  it 
is  a  social  institution  in  all  countries  and  a 
mighty  factor  in  the  world;  then  disputants 
may  diverge  respecting  its  origin,  nature, 
object,  etc. 

It  is  in  these  respects  that  we  shall  find  a 
radical  difference  between  Germans  and  Amer- 
icans. Americans  believe  that  religion  consists 
in  the  worship  and  service  of  God.  Germans 
believe  that  religion,  at  least  very  largely, 
consists  in  the  worship  and  service  of  the  state 
or  the  Kaiser  as  the  supreme  power.  The 
Kaiser  said  to  his  soldiers,  "You  think  each 
day  of  your  Emperor.  Do  not  forget  God." 
Treitschke  says,  "The  end  all  and  be  all  of 
a  state  is  power."  Bernhardi  approves  the 
dictum  and  declares  that  "The  highest  moral 
duty  of  a  state  is  to  increase  its  power.  The 
state  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  morality  of  its 
own  action.  It  is  in  fact  above  morality  or, 
in  other  words,  whatever  is  necessary  is 
moral." 

The  supreme  judge  in  morals  is  here  declared 
to  be  the  state.  He  thus  puts  the  state  in  the 
place  of  God  and  spells  it  with  a  capital.  ' '  Ger- 
many stands,"  says  another,  "as  the  supreme 
arbiter  of  her  own  methods."     The  same  of 

[168] 


German  Culture 

course  would  be  true  of  every  other  nation. 
Thus  we  have  the  tribal  gods  of  paganism. 

Of  course  all  this  would  be  denied  in  theory 
by  Germans ;  but  we  are  not  now  dealing  with 
theories  or  professions  but  with  facts  and  prac- 
tices. When  people  say,  ''The  state  is  the  sole 
judge  of  morality  ...  is  in  fact  above  moral- 
ity," the  god  of  that  people  is  the  state  and 
not  the  God  of  the  Bible  or  the  Christian. 

The  Kaiser  and  his  entire  political,  military, 
educational  and  ecclesiastical  oligarchy  sub- 
scribe to  the  doctrine,  Suprema  lex  regis  vo- 
luntas, which,  in  the  last  analysis,  is  the  prac- 
tical enthronement  of  man  as  the  supreme 
being.  We  are  not,  therefore,  surprised  to 
hear  Bismarck  say,  "With  us,  sir,  there  is  no 
sovereign  but  the  King.  It  is  he  alone  who 
wills,"  or  his  brother  speak  of  "The  sacred 
person"  of  the  Kaiser,  or  the  authors  of  "The 
Truth  About  Germany"  say  that  they  must 
follow  wherever  the  Kaiser  leads.  He  is  called 
by  the  people,  "The  anointed  of  the  Lord." 
Can  we  wonder  that  the  Kaiser  says,  "Sic 
volo,  sic  jubeo,"  or  that  he  assumes  the  pre- 
rogatives of  God,  or  even  that  he  should  say 
in  his  heart  what  the  greatest  of  German  phi- 
losophers said, ' '  If  there  were  a  god  how  should 
I  endure  not  to  be  God?" 

The  paganized  ruling  classes  in  Germany 
still  have  the  Bible,  the  church,  the  Christian 
traditions  and  forms  of  worship,  as  an  inher- 
itance,  but  these   have  become   empty   shells 

[169] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

from  which  the  life  has  departed.  Thus,  re- 
ligion, so  far  from  having  "Soul  depth"  is 
not  even  skin  deep.  There  are  a  few  genuine 
Christians  among  them  and  many  more  among 
the  common  people,  but  they  have  little  influ- 
ence upon  a  government  which  has  taken  the 
place  of  God. 

The  unscrupulousness  and  brutality  of  Ger- 
many in  the  beginning  and  carrying  on  of  this 
war  have  revealed  as  nothing  else  could  have 
done  the  true  character  of  her  religion  and 
morality.  "We  can  now  account  for  the  strange, 
anti-Christian  sayings  and  writings  of  eminent 
Germans  in  the  past,  and  for  recent  utterances 
of  religious  leaders  respecting  the  war,  which 
have  shocked  the  Christian  and  even  the  pagan 
world. 

Nietzsche,  a  brilliant  German  philosopher, 
boldly  declared  that  the  pagan  deity  "Oden 
was  greater  than  God."  He  deplored  Ger- 
many's adoption,  in  the  fifth  century,  of  Chris- 
tianity. He  is  quoted  in  the  Bibleotheca  Sacra 
as  follows:  "Ye  have  heard  how  in  old  times 
it  was  said,  Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they 
shall  inherit  the  earth;  but  I  say  unto  you, 
Blessed  are  the  valiant,  for  they  shall  make 
the  earth  their  throne.  And  ye  have  heard 
men  say,  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit;  but 
I  say  unto  you,  Blessed  are  the  great  in  soul 
and  free  in  spirit,  for  they  shall  enter  into  Val- 
halla. And  ye  have  heard  men  say,  Blessed 
are   the   peace-makers;    but   I   say  unto   you 

[170] 


German  Culture 

Blessed  are  the  war-makers,  for  they  shall  be 
called,  if  not  the  children  of  Jahve,  the  chil- 
dren of  Oden,  who  is  greater  than  Jahve." 

Teaching  so  repugnant  to  Christianity  would 
have  met  with  crushing  opposition  in  almost 
any  Christian  country.  Not  so,  however,  in 
Germany.  While  Nietzsche  was  repudiated  by 
many,  his  teaching  took  hold  of  multitudes  who 
applauded,  approved  and  have  now  put  into 
practice  the  spirit  and  the  most  vicious  fea- 
tures of  his  teachings. 

There  is  one  bed-rock  principle  in  the  Chris- 
tian religion  and  that  is  love — love  to  God  and 
love  to  man.  Upon  the  rock  of  brotherhood 
human  society  is  building  and  will  finally  rest, 
or  the  world  is  doomed.  "What  is  the  German 
teaching  upon  this  subject?  Nietzsche  an- 
swers, "  Brotherhood  is  for  shop-keepers,  cows, 
women  and  Englishmen. "  ' '  Ah, ' '  it  is  replied, 
"Germany  repudiates  such  teachings.' '  Does 
she?  Then  listen  to  one  of  her  latest  spokes- 
men, Bernhardi:  "The  Christian  law  of  love 
applies  only  to  individuals  of  the  same  state," 
that  is,  love  stops  at  the  state  line,  and  the 
Christian  God  of  love  becomes  a  local,  state 
or  tribal  god  of  paganism.  "Ah,"  it  is  replied, 
"Germany  is  misrepresented  by  Bernhardi." 
Is  she?  Then  listen  again;  Professor  Hugo 
Munsterberg  writes  in  a  book  just  published 
as  follows,  "It  is  the  grossest  immorality  that 
nations  should  respect  the  possessions  of  other 
nations." 

[171] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

This  is  the  horrible  teaching  of  Nietzsche 
brought  up  to  date.  He  says,  "You  should 
love  peace  as  a  means  to  new  war  and  brief 
peace  more  than  a  long  one.  Do  you  say  it 
is  a  good  cause  by  which  a  war  is  hallowed"? 
I  say  unto  you,  it  is  a  good  war  which  hal- 
lows every  cause.  War  and  courage  have 
done  greater  things  than  the  love  of  one's 
neighbor. ' ' 

We  are  told  that  this  must  not  be  taken  lit- 
erally but  symbolically.  Symbolical  of  what? 
Belgium  is  the  answer.  How  futile  the  attempt 
to  explain  away  the  wicked  principles  of  these 
German  writers,  when  the  German  army,  be- 
fore the  eyes  of  the  whole  world,  is  daily  car- 
rying them  out  in  letter  and  spirit.  An  able 
writer  who  was  for  three  years  a  student  in 
Germany  assures  us,  "that  the  rank  and  file 
as  well  as  the  aristocracy  .  .  .  have  become 
ominously  full  of  the  doctrine  of  the  survival 
of  the  fittest  and  the  consequent  expediency  of 
power,  not  only  in  intellectual  rivalry  but 
in  Krupps  and  high  explosives. ' ' 

The  Kaiser,  in  his  world-empire  ambition, 
comes  to  the  support  of  this  doctrine  of  seiz- 
ing other  people's  possessions  by  deliberately 
setting  aside  the  commandment,  "Thou  shalt 
not  steal."  The  Earl  of  Halsburg  expresses 
himself  in  regard  to  this  kind  of  "soul  depth 
in  religion"  as  follows:  "I  wish  to  denounce 
any  man  who  thinks  himself  appointed  by  God 
to  take  possession  of  somebody  else's  prop- 

[172] 


German  Culture 

erty.  ...  I  cannot  allow  this  discussion  to 
pass  without  raising  my  voice  in  opposition  to 
the  notion  that  because  a  very  big  crime  is 
committed,  it  is  to  be  treated  as  though  it  was 
a  little  crime.  Any  emperor  who  wants  to  take 
somebody  else's  land  is  a  dirty  thief,  and  I 
do  not  approve  of  the  sort  of  delicacy  which 
would  prevent  our  expressing  ourselves  plainly 
as  to  actions  of  that  sort.  They  are  actions 
of  which  any  man  should  be  ashamed  ...  by 
such  means  you  are  to  carry  your  grandeur 
and  your  glory  to  the  uttermost  parts  and 
whether  the  offender  be  Napoleon  who  com- 
mitted great  crimes — or  Sennacherib,  he  ought 
to  be  hanged." 

We  are  beginning  to  get  an  insight  into  the 
"soul  depth  in  religion,"  which  Professor 
Eucken  declares  to  be  one  of  the  "holiest  pos- 
sessions" for  which  Germany  is  fighting.  The 
German  who  says,  "It  is  the  grossest  immo- 
rality that  nations  should  respect  the  posses- 
sions of  other  nations,"  is  a  professor  in  Har- 
vard University.  His  assertion  is  astonishing. 
It  is  outrageously  unchristian,  immoral  and 
brutal.  To  set  such  a  man  to  teach  American 
youth  is  scandalous.  All  considerations  of 
ability,  policy  or  money  weigh  as  nothing  in 
the  face  of  a  declaration  that  it  is  "the  gross- 
est immorality"  not  to  ravage,  plunder  and 
murder  an  unoffending  neighboring  people.  A 
more  socially  anarchistic,  morally  repulsive 
and  religiously  diabolical  sentiment  was  never 

[173] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

uttered  on  American  soil,  and  it  is  a  thousand 
pities  that  it  should  emanate  from  Harvard 
University  whose  motto  is  "Christo  et  Eccle- 
siae."  The  sentiment  is  the  echo  of  principles 
everywhere  adopted  in  Germany  and  put  in 
practice  by  her  armies  in  their  methods  of 
warfare. 

We  do  not  claim  that  a  general  induction 
can  be  made  from  particular  cases,  unless  these 
are  clearly  representative  or  have  their  logical 
outcome  in  actual  conduct  or  results. 

There  is  one  code  of  laws  universally  rec- 
ognized as  of  divine  authority;  this  is  the 
Decalogue.  Its  commandments  are  the  founda- 
tion of  both  natural  and  revealed  religion. 
The  man  who  denies  this  divine  authority, 
puts  himself  outside  the  pale  of  all  religion. 
The  Kaiser,  whose  constant  appeal  to  God  and 
the  German  Sword  is  offensive  to  all  true 
Christians,  declares  as  follows:  "The  Old 
Testament  includes  a  large  number  of  chap- 
ters the  nature  of  which  is  purely  historical 
and  human  and  not  a  revelation  from  God. 
/  believe,  for  example,  that  the  proclamation 
of  the  law  on  Blount  Sinai  must  not  be  consid- 
ered as  having  been  inspired  by  God."  Of 
course  whatever  is  "purely  historical  and 
human"  has  no  divine  authority  over  any  man. 
In  this  repudiation  of  the  very  foundation  of 
all  religion,  we  have  another  example  of  Ger- 
many's "soul  depth  in  religion"! 

In  "To  the  Evangelical  Christians  Abroad," 

[174] 


German  Culture 

thirty-two  German  ministers  say  that  Aus- 
tria's war  upon  Servia  was  "justifiable  ven- 
geance for  an  abominable  royal  murder."  It 
is  conceded  that  the  murderer  was  a  subject 
of  Austria;  that  not  a  shred  of  evidence  has 
been  offered  to  show  Servia 's  complicity  in 
the  crime;  that  Servia  offered  to  submit  the 
issue  to  arbitration  and  that  Austria  refused 
and  made  war  upon  Servia.  "What  do  the 
precepts  and  spirit  of  Christianity  require  in 
such  a  case?  We  answer,  the  trial,  conviction 
and  punishment  of  the  murderer  and  the  peace- 
ful arbitration  of  the  issue  between  Austria 
and  Servia.  What  is  the  answer  of  the  German 
ministers?  " Justifiable  vengeance"  or,  unre- 
strained revenge  by  means  of  war.  No  com- 
ment could  make  plainer  the  anti-Christian 
attitude  of  these  ministers.  Listen  again  to 
them:  "No  scruple  holds  bach  our  enemies 
where,  in  their  opinion  there  is  a  prospect, 
through  our  destruction,  of  seizing  for  them- 
selves an  economic  advantage,  or  an  increase 
of  power,  a  fragment  of  our  mother-land,  or 
our  colonial  possessions  or  our  trade." 

We  offer  three  observations  respecting  these 
charges. 

First.  These  ministers  do  not  offer  a  shred 
of  evidence  in  support  of  a  single  one  of  their 
charges  and  they  cannot. 

Second.  There  is  not  the  semblance  of  truth 
in  their  statement.  No  enemy  or  anyone  else 
has  ever  suggested  the  "destruction"  of  Ger- 

[175] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

many;  no  " economic  advantage"  has  been 
seized  by  anyone;  no  "fragment  of  our  mother- 
land or  colonial  possessions"  has  been  sought 
by  any  nation;  no  German  "trade  has  been 
seized,"  but  Germans  have  seized  the  trade 
of  England  and  other  nations  right  and  left. 
These  facts  are  matters  of  history  and  do  not 
admit  of  dispute. 

Third.  These  ministers  are  learned  men. 
They  know  that  it  is  not  merely  sophistical, 
but  morally  indefensible  to  make  serious 
charges  of  wrong  doing,  without  any  pretense 
of  furnishing  evidence  to  support  them.  It  is 
a  case  of  bearing  false  witness. 

As  love  is  the  essential  principle  of  Chris- 
tianity, so  hatred  is  its  extreme  opposite.  We 
hold  that  no  man  can  be  a  Christian  who  de- 
liberately hates  a  fellow  man.  There  is  high 
authority  for  this  position.  It  reads  as  fol- 
lows: "If  any  man  say  I  love  God  and  hateth 
his  brother  he  is  a  liar  and  the  truth  is  not  in 
him."  When,  therefore,  the  Berlin  pastors 
subscribed  to  the  sentiment  of  "nothing  but 
hatred  and  contempt"  for  the  English,  what 
are  we  to  think  of  their  Christianity?  Just 
how  does  their  "soul  depth  in  religion"  mani- 
fest itself  toward  their  neighbors'?  It  will 
hardly  be  contended  that  these  pastors  are  not 
representative  of  German  religion. 

In  his  admirable  work  on  "The  Evidence  in 
the  Case,"  Mr.  James  M.  Beck  quotes  as  fol- 
lows from  Dr.  Fuchs,  an  eminent  German,  who 

[176] 


German  Culture 

demands  ' '  Education  to  hate.  Education  to  the 
estimation  of  hatred.  Organization  of  hatred. 
Education  to  the  desire  for  hatred.  Let  us 
abolish  unripe  and  false  shame  before  brutality 
and  fanaticism.  "We  must  not  hesitate  to  an- 
nounce :  To  us  is  given  faith,  hope  and  hatred, 
but  hatred  is  the  greatest  among  them."  In 
America  this  would  be  the  ravings  of  a  mad 
man.  How  is  it  regarded  in  Germany?  Mr. 
Beck  says  this  man  is  "a  representative  physi- 
cian, a  prominent  journalist  and  a  distin- 
guished retired  officer  of  the  German  army." 
An  Oxford  professor  asks,  "What  possessed 
the  Germans  at  Louvain  to  make  a  special  point 
of  burning  the  University  library  and  the 
colleges'?"  The  answer  is,  hatred.  W^hat  pos- 
sessed a  German  submarine  on  March  28,  1915, 
to  sink  the  Falaba,  a  passenger  ship,  sending 
one  hundred  and  twenty  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren to  a  watery  grave?  There  is  only  one 
answer,  hatred. 

A  German  newspaper  printed  an  article  by 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Kaden  in  which  occurs  the 
following:  "Send  it  reverberating  like  clang- 
ing bells  from  tower  to  town  throughout  the 
country  side:  Hate!  Hate  the  accursed  Eng- 
lish!  Hate!" 

"When  your  soul  has  become  great,"  says 
Nietzsche,  "it  will  become  wanton;  in  your 
greatness  there  will  be  malice  I  know,  and  in 
malice  the  proud  heart  will  meet  a  weakling. ' ' 
The  London  Express  says,  "German  hatred  of 

[177] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

this  country  is  a  monomania.  If  they  ever  have 
a  chance  the  Germans  will  spread  havoc  and 
death  in  Great  Britain  with  a  thoroughness 
compared  to  which  their  proceedings  in  Bel- 
gium will  appear  a  mere  Sunday-school 
picnic. ' ' 

Frederick  the  Great  is  reported  to  have  said 
to  his  nephew,  "To  despoil  your  neighbors  is 
to  deprive  them  of  the  means  of  injuring  you 
.  .  .  with  regard  to  war,  it  is  a  business  in 
which  the  slightest  scruple  spoils  the  whole 
matter  ...  be  sure  not  only  of  preserving 
your  kingdom  but  of  enlarging  it." 

One  hundred  and  fifty  years  have  passed 
since  these  barbarous  sentiments  were  uttered. 
During  this  time  the  world  has  made  great 
progress  in  civilization,  especially  in  the  splen- 
did development  of  altruism  and  philanthropy; 
hence  it  is  that  Christendom  is  shocked  at  Ger- 
many's adoption  of  these  inhuman  and  savage 
principles. 

Hundreds  of  similar  examples  can  be  given, 
showing  that  hatred  is  an  accepted  doctrine  in 
Germany,  and  the  last  nine  months  show  that 
it  is  a  working  principle  in  the  conduct  of  this 
war.  Lissauer's  "Chant  of  Hate"  is  Ger- 
many's national  hymn  and  everywhere  sung 
with  religious  fervor.  A  cartoon  represents 
leading  men  of  Germany  grinding  out  ' '  Chants 
of  Hate"  while  you  wait,  showing  the  great 
popularity  of  the  poem. 

Since  hatred  is  the  extreme  opposite  of  love 

[178] 


German  Culture 

and  brotherhood  enjoined  by  religion,  the  claim 
that  Germany  is  distinguished  above  other 
nations  by  "soul  depth  in  religion"  is  nothing 
less  than  grotesque. 

This  war  has  led  Americans  to  examine  the 
history  and  character  of  German  institutions 
as  never  before.  We  could  not  understand  why 
Germany  began  this  war.  The  crime  of  delib- 
erately provoking  a  war  is  so  monstrous  that 
we  were  at  a  loss  to  account  for  Germany's 
action.  It  seemed  to  be  a  war  without  a  cause. 
The  secret  is  now  disclosed.  There  was  no 
religion  or  morality  to  restrain  the  rampant 
militarism.  Instead  of  "soul  depth  in  religion" 
we  find  a  religion  so  shallow  that  it  cannot 
furnish  even  a  veneering  for  the  basest  pas- 
sions— the  lust  of  "blood  and  iron." 

The  doctrine  that  might  makes  right  is  a 
figment  in  America,  but  a  reality  in  Germany. 
In  the  new  ethics  a  war  of  conquest  is  the? 
wickedest  thing  conceivable  in  America,  while 
in  Germany  it  is  a  virtue.  The  rise  and  prog- 
ress of  these  vicious  principles  of  militarism 
have  blighted  the  Christian  faith  in  Ger- 
many and  religion  has  lost  its  hold  upon  the 
people. 

Mr.  Coit,  a  competent  judge  and  a  warm 
friend  of  German  Kultur,  says  "Germans  do 
not  pretend  to  be  holy,  followers  of  Christ.  It 
is  rather  the  spirit  of  Napoleon  that  rules  Ger- 
many. To  reduce  a  treaty  to  'A  scrap  of 
paper'  is   quite   consistent  with  German  cul- 

[179] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

ture,"  and  he  might  have  added  with  German 
''soul  depth  in  religion"! 

The  "scrap  of  paper"  incident  created  a 
profound  sensation  throughout  the  world. 
Why?  It  would  hardly  have  found  its  way 
into  the  newspapers  so  far  as  its  political, 
diplomatic,  or  military  significance  was  con- 
cerned. It  was  because  it  ivas  a  direct  and 
deadly  assaidt  upon  the  citadel  of  morality  and 
religion.  Had  the  assault  prevailed,  had  this 
citadel  fallen,  all  would  have  been  lost,  all  faith 
and  justice,  all  law,  religion  and  morals  would 
have  been  over  run,  devastated  and  ruined  by 
the  arch  enemy  of  the  race.  Had  men  been 
silent  and  accepted  that  principle,  the  world 
that  has  been  slowly  climbing  up  the  sublime 
heights  of  "peace  on  earth,  good  will  to  men" 
would  have  relapsed  into  chaos  and  despair. 
In  that  little  "scrap  of  paper"  the  German 
Chancellor,  Bethmann  Hollweg,  represented 
the  Kaiser  and  the  under  rulers  of  Germany. 
It  will  stand  as  the  symbol  of  religious  and 
moral  decay  of  their  empire.  It  led  directly  to 
the  attempt  to  bribe  England,  so  epigrammat- 
ically  set  forth  by  Mr.  G.  K.  Chesterton,  "Ger- 
many came  to  England  and  said  if  you  will 
break  your  promise  in  the  hope  of  helping  me 
to  break  my  promise,  I  will  reward  you  with 
another  of  my  celebrated  promises,  or  I  am 
going  to  lie.  If  you  will  lie  too,  we  can  both 
be  trusted  to  tell  the  truth." 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  we  Americans  cannot 

[180] 


German  Culture 

comprehend  what  the  Kaiser  means  in  saying, 
"To  possess  kultur  means  to  have  the  deepest 
conscientiousness  and  the  highest  morality. 
My  Germans  possess  that."  Was  it  this  ''con- 
scientiousness" and  "morality"  that  inspired 
this  holy  charge  to  his  soldiers,  "When  you 
encounter  the  enemy  ...  no  quarter  shall  be 
given,  no  prisoners  shall  be  taken"!  Was  it 
"soul  depth  in  religion"  that  led  him  to  say 
to  Mohammedan  Turkey,  "Proclaim  a  holy 
war  against  my  religion  and  the  religion  of 
my  people"?  By  this  reductio  ad  absurdum 
we  can  now  appreciate  Germany's  "soul  depth 
in  religion." 

The  truth  is  the  vital  spark  of  Christianity 
has  about  disappeared  in  Germany.  Theology 
has  been  divorced  from  religion  and  taken  the 
highest  seat  in  the  synagogue.  This  process 
has  been  going  on  for  half  a  century.  True 
religion,  both  personal  and  institutional,  must 
suffer  an  eclipse  when  theologians  and  schools 
forsake  it  by  substituting  a  cold,  barren 
intellectualism. 

The  fathers  of  philosophy,  science  and  music 
are  not  the  fathers  of  religion.  They  are  so 
far  from  possessing  "soul  depth  in  religion" 
that  they  are,  for  the  most  part,  strangers  to 
the  soul  of  religion  or  the  religion  of  the  soul. 
Religion  is  a  matter  of  the  heart  and  emotions 
and  cannot  be  expressed  in  terms  of  the  intel- 
lect. The  attempt  to  do  this  is  fatal.  Faith 
does  not  "stand  in  the  wisdom  of  man"  but 

[181] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

in  "the  power  of  God."  Whatever  that  power 
is,  it  is  not  the  power  of  man.  This  is  de- 
nied by  German  rationalists  falsely  called 
theologians. 

Dr.  W.  F.  Griffith  Thomas,  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  for  January,  1915,  says,  "It  is  almost 
incredible  to  read  that,  when  Harnack  endeav- 
ored to  express  his  religious  convictions  in  his 
book,  'The  Essence  of  Christianity,'  a  well- 
known  theologian,  Julicher,  condemned  it  as 
not  the  proper  work  for  a  professor.  Perhaps 
greatest  of  all  is  the  fact  that  Christ  as  ex- 
pressing God  has  been  woefully  ignored  and 
neglected  in  Germany.  It  is  true  that  the  Kai- 
ser has  referred  to  God  in  various  ways  almost 
ad  nauseam,  and  the  motto  on  the  soldier's 
belt  is  'God  with  us';  but  no  one  can  doubt 
that  the  conception  of  God  is  Deistic  rather 
than  that  of  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ."  It  is  such  a  conception  as 
admits  of  principles  subversive  of  Christianity, 
such  as  "War  is  a  good  thing."  "The  weak 
have  no  right  to  live."  "Might  makes  right." 
"It  is  the  grossest  immorality  .  .  .  to  respect 
the  possessions  of  other  nations."  "Hatred  is 
greater  than  love."  It  is  a  conception  that 
permits  in  war  every  crime  of  the  Decalogue 
and  tramples  upon  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
and  is  as  far  removed  from  Christianity  as 
Gehenna  is  from  Paradise. 

The  higher  criticism  in  Germany  has  cut 
away  all  Biblical  moorings  and  set  theologians 

[182] 


German  Culture 

adrift  on  the  ocean  of  speculation  and  left  the 
people  without  God  and  without  hope  in  the 
world.  Wellhausen  said,  "If  my  views  prevail 
the  common  people  cannot  retain  the  Bible." 
With  theologians  apostatized,  the  Bible  dis- 
carded, Christ  rejected,  churches  neglected  and 
religion  paganized,  Germany  had  to  worship 
something  and  so  she  set  up  the  Moloch  of 
Militarism  and  is  now  immolating  hetacombs 
of  human  victims  to  her  idol. 

Educational  Culture 

Another  characteristic  of  German  culture  in 
that  "true  structure  of  human  existence" 
which,  according  to  Professor  Eucken  has  been 
"entrusted  to  Germany,' '  is  "The  creation  of 
independent  personality  in  our  educational 
methods." 

Education  is  a  magic  word  in  the  United 
States.  The  two  pillars  of  our  republic  are 
religion  and  education.  The  republic  is  free 
and  enduring  just  in  proportion  as  the  people 
are  religious  and  intelligent.  Some  are  indif- 
ferent respecting  scientific  culture  and  some 
respecting  religious  culture,  but  every  Ameri- 
can, if  he  is  half  a  man  is  loyal  to  the  cause 
of  education. 

The  merits  of  the  German  educational  sys- 
tem may  be  at  once  conceded.  Among  the 
things  it  lacks,  the  most  important  is  this 
"independent  personality"  which   is   claimed 

[183] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

by  Professor  Eucken  as  one  of  its  principal 
characteristics. 

The  German  army  is  not  inaptly  called  a 
machine.  Precisely  the  same  is  true  of  educa- 
tion. So  far  from  developing  "independent 
personality"  either  in  the  army  or  in  educa- 
tion, the  direct  opposite  is  the  truth.  It  is  the 
close  formation,  the  whole  as  a  unit,  in  either 
case,  that  describes  the  method.  In  this  method 
the  personality  of  the  individual  is  suppressed 
in  favor  of  the  movement  in  masses.  It  is  the 
machine  rather  than  the  mechanic  that  does 
the  work  and  carries  off  the  honors. 

On  the  other  hand  educational  methods  in 
the  United  States  develop  personality.  With 
us  it  is  the  mechanic  rather  than  the  machine, 
the  man  behind  the  gun  rather  than  the  gun, 
the  individual  rather  than  the  school  that 
engages  chief  interest. 

The  relation  of  the  state  to  the  people  will 
determine  the  character  and  methods  in  edu- 
cation. Where  the  people  exist  for  the  state, 
education  will  exist  for  the  state,  and  the  less 
"independent  personality"  the  better;  where 
the  state  exists  for  the  people,  education  exists 
for  the  people  and  the  more  "personality"  the 
better. 

Method,  drill,  thoroughness  and  mechanical 
efficiency  in  education  have  reached  high-water 
mark  in  Germany,  but  in  originality,  acuteness, 
comprehension,  personality  and  independence 
Germany  is  far  behind  England  and  the  United 

[184] 


German  Culture 

States.  Above  all,  in  the  amenities  of  life, 
politeness,  kindness,  modesty,  gratitude,  gen- 
tleness, neighborly  love  and  refinement,  quali- 
ties above  all  others  that  must  distinguish  any 
educational  culture  worthy  the  name,  are  in- 
conspicuous in  Germany. 

We  have  seen  in  a  former  chapter  that  Ger- 
man universities  are  under  state  control.  The 
professors  are  state  officers,  appointed,  paid 
and  disciplined  by  the  state.  Since  the  state 
and  militarism  are  so  nearly  synonymous,  no 
wrong  impression  will  be  conveyed  in  saying 
that  the  universities  and,  therefore,  all  educa- 
tion is  under  military  control.  We  say  all 
education,  because  education  in  Germany  is 
from  the  top  downward.  In  the  United  States, 
it  is  from  the  bottom  upward.  Here  the  people 
control  the  common  school,  the  common  school 
controls  the  university,  and  the  university 
controls  the  government.  The  whole  process 
is  reversed  in  Germany,  where  the  government 
controls  the  university,  the  university  the  com- 
mon school  and  the  schools  the  people. 

If,  therefore,  the  German  government  would 
keep  up  the  war  spirit  of  the  people  against 
Russia,  it  has  only  to  communicate  its  will  to 
the  universities  and,  as  Bismarck  says,  it  is 
their  business  to  ask  no  questions,  but  to  devise 
means  of  carrying  out  the  will  of  the  Kaiser 
and  they  will  fail  to  do  this  at  their  peril. 
"The  complaisant  professor  is  decorated,  the 
contumacious  is  cashiered." 

[185] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

We  can  now  understand  why  the  universities 
invented  the  bogey  of  the  "Slav  menace," 
which  has  kept  the  people  up  to  the  boiling 
point  of  war  against  Russia.  Professor  Simon 
N.  Patten  says,  "The  cry  of  'Germany  versus 
Slav'  originated  in  the  university,  and  the  pro- 
fessor rules  Germany;  his  idealism  has  gone 
to  the  schools  and  is  firmly  implanted  in  every 
boy's  heart."  This  "Slav  menace,"  says  a 
writer,  was  thus  "an  invention  to  cover  the 
purpose  of  conquest." 

The  story  of  the  origin  and  object  of  the 
"Slav  menace,"  which  has  no  reality  in  fact 
but  is  a  mere  phantom,  illustrates  the  attitude 
of  the  German  professors  in  this  war.  They 
are  its  most  ardent  apologists  and  supporters. 
They  have  sent  an  appeal  to  foreign  univer- 
sities to  support  the  German  cause  on  the 
ground  of  culture.  They  say,  "These  univer- 
sities know  what  German  culture  means  to  the 
world.  So  we  trust  they  will  stand  by  Ger- 
many." Never  were  the  genius  and  character 
of  American  universities  more  thoroughly  mis- 
conceived, than  by  imagining  that  they  would 
approve  or  condone  the  German  war — the  most 
perfidious  and  infamous  crime  in  modern  times 
— for  the  sake  of  a  culture  that  has  made  war 
its  chief  element,  and  should  be  shunned  as  we 
would  shun  the  plague  of  leprosy.  It  reminds 
us  of  the  notorious  Ruloff,  convicted  of  murder 
and  sentenced  to  death  in  Ohio.  A  college 
president  visited  him  in  prison.     Ruloff  con- 

[186] 


German  Culture 

fessed  that  lie  had  murdered  thirteen  persons. 
He  was  a  linguist  and  could  speak  thirteen 
languages,  which  happened  to  be  one  language 
for  each  murder.  He  gravely  argued  that  his 
linguistic  culture  was  a  ''possession"  that  the 
world  should  not  lose,  that  it  entitled  him  to 
life,  and  he  besought  his  visitor  to  intercede 
for  him  on  this  ground.  Like  these  German 
professors,  he  virtually  said,  "You  know  what 
linguistic  culture  means  to  the  world,  so  I  trust 
you  will  stand  by  me ! ' ' 

The  Intellectuals  of  Germany  recently  as- 
serted that  ' '  German  Intellectuals  and  German 
soldiers  form  but  one  soul,  and  Goethe,  and 
Kant  and  Beethoven  are  our  fathers."  Soul 
in  Germany  means  the  pagan  soul ;  in  America 
it  means  the  Christian  soul.  This  identifica- 
tion of  culture  with  war  is  incomprehensible  to 
Americans.  They  believe  that  war  is  a  terrible 
evil,  destructive,  demoralizing  and  ruinous  to 
all  that  culture  means. 

Where  the  chief  divinity  of  a  nation  is  Mars, 
educational  culture  will  naturally  honor  his 
heroes.  This  explains  the  recently  reported 
act  of  a  German  university  in  conferring  the 
degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  upon  General 
von  Hindenberg  after  a  great  slaughter  of 
Russians ! 

The  process  of  militarizing  education  in  Ger- 
many has  been  a  gradual  one.  It  began  soon 
after  the  easy  triumph  over  France  in  1871. 
Flushed  with  victory  and  the  enormous  indem- 

[187] 


"Made  in  Germany'3 

nity  of  a  billion  dollars  exacted  from  France, 
Germany  began  to  regard  war  as  the  one  ob- 
ject of  glorification.  A  national  altar  was 
erected  to  Brute  Force,  and,  forsaking  the 
Christian  God  of  peace  and  love,  the  people, 
led  by  the  Kaiser  and  the  universities,  bowed 
down  and  worshipped  at  this  shrine.  There 
were  misgivings  and  protests  by  wise  and  good 
men,  but  without  avail.  Theoclor  Mommsen 
spoke  as  follows  to  his  constituents  at  Halle : — 
' 'Have  a  care,  gentlemen,  lest  in  this  state 
which  has  been  at  once  a  power  in  arms  and 
a  power  in  intelligence,  the  intelligence  should 
vanish  and  nothing  but  the  pure  military  state 
should  remain." 

From  that  day  to  the  present  time  German 
culture  has  declined.  Her  great  philosophers 
and  poets  belong  to  a  pre-militaristic  age.  In 
philosophy,  art,  science,  music  and  belles- 
lettres,  it  is  said  Germany  has  fallen  to  the 
third  if  not  the  fourth  place  among  the  nations. 
For  a  hundred  years  or  more  there  has  not 
been  a  single  writer  of  novels  in  Germany  who 
equals  in  literary  excellence  a  group  of  a  dozen 
English  writers. 

A  far  more  serious  matter  in  a  state  that 
has  enthroned  militarism  as  its  idol,  is  the 
decav  of  moral  culture.  We  do  not  share  the 
popular  view  as  to  the  military  virtues,  so 
called.  The  man  who  will  die  for  the  right  is 
a  brave  man.  The  man  who  will  die  for  the 
sake  of  a  fight  is  a  brute.     His  valor  is  the 

[188] 


German  Culture 

valor  of  the  beast.  In  every  war  there  is  more 
of  this  kind  of  valor  than  we  like  to  admit. 
Militarism  in  time  of  peace  nourishes  the  beast 
in  human  nature.  We  are  not  thinking  so  much 
of  its  disgusting  superciliousness  and  hoggish- 
ness,  which  are  notorious  on  the  streets  of  Ber- 
lin, as  of  the  vices  that  nourish  and  are  con- 
doned, but  which  sap  the  virility  of  the  nation. 
No  amount  of  scientific  or  other  culture  can 
counteract  their  fatal  effects.  Commenting  on 
this  state  a  writer  says,  "  Brutal  wickedness 
and  misery  increased  a  thousand  fold,  cause  us 
to  repeat  Rousseau's  prayer,  'Almighty  God, 
deliver  us  from  the  sciences  and  the  pernicious 
arts  of  our  father!  Grant  us  ignorance,  inno- 
cence, and  poverty  once  more  as  the  only  things 
which  can  bring  happiness  and  which  are  of 
value  in  thine  eyes.'  " 

The  later  doctrine  of  the  Superman  has  been 
disastrous  to  German  morals.  Goethe's  "Su- 
perman" was  one  who  rose  "spiritually  and 
intellectually  above  the  foibles  of  humanity," 
and  was  thus  a  beautiful  conception. 

"Unless  above  himself, 
Man  can  erect  himself, 
How  mean  a  thing  is  man!" 

Nietzsche,  however,  caught  up  Goethe's  Su- 
perman and  made  it  stand  for  a  big  "bully 
trampling  down  whatever  is  not  strong  enough 
to  resist."  In  other  words,  he  made  it  a  slogan 
of  militarism.     His   Superman  meant  beyond 

[189] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

good  and  evil,  or  rather  good  and  evil  were  no 
longer  to  be  considered.  It  transcended  moral- 
ity. Force,  power,  were  the  only  things  worth 
while,  and  death  to  the  weak.  Nietzsche  said, 
"Weakness  is  the  political  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  although  he  flouted  all  religion. 

If  the  Superman  is  untouched  by  good  and 
evil,  he  is  to  be  classed  with  the  lower  animals 
since  they  also  are  untouched  by  good  and  evil. 
This  shows  us  not  a  Superman  but  a  Subman, 
and  to  this  species  Nietzsche  and  all  his  ilk 
belong. 

The  brilliant  B.oston  correspondent  of  the 
Springfield  Republican  (Mass.)  says,  "Nietz- 
sche undertook  to  set  aside  the  Ten  Hebrew 
Commandments  in  favor  of  his  theoretical  ab- 
straction, the  Superman  ...  but  his  imagin- 
ary Nietzschean  Superman  has  turned  out,  in 
practice,  to  be  some  scandalous  Caesar,  Tartar, 
Turk,  or  Roman  pope,  who  filled  out  the 
schemes  devised  for  him  by  the  poet: — 

"  'Strength  should  be  lord  of  imbecility. 

And  the  rude  son  should  strike  his  father  dead. 

Then  everything  includes  itself  in  power, 

Power  into  Will,  Will  into  Appetite, 

And  Appetite,  a  universal  wolf, 

So  doubly  seconded  with  will  and  power, 

Must  make,  perforce,  a  universal  prey, 

And  last,  eat  up  himself.'  " 

The  mischief  wrought  in  Germany  by  the 
influence  of  Nietzsche  and  his  followers  is  in- 
calculable.   To  them  can  be  traced  the  diabol- 

[190] 


German  Culture 

ical  German  doctrine,  "My  country  right  or 
wrong."  His  teachings  have  poisoned  the 
atmosphere  of  the  throne,  the  military,  the 
university,  the  school  and  the  common  people 
with  the  deadly  fumes  of  militarism  until  the 
nation  now  lies  convulsed  in  the  throes  of  war. 

We  have  said  that  German  education  was 
from  the  top  downward.  This  insures  a  unity 
of  system,  method,  sjnrit  and  result  possible 
only  to  a  machine  controlled  by  a  master  me- 
chanic— the  autocratic  hand,  but  it  is  fatal  to 
"independent  personality  in  education." 

By  this  system,  any  doctrine,  idea,  belief  or 
policy  at  the  top  can  be  readily  transmitted 
to  the  bottom  with  an  efficiency  unexcelled  by 
a  Corliss  engine.  By  this  system,  arbitrarily 
worked  from  the  top,  the  same  efficiency  can 
be  secured  in  industrial  operations.  The  Ger- 
mans, says  another,  "have  been  dragooned  into 
an  efficiency  by  an  autocracy  for  its  own  selfish 
ends."  Liberty  must  be  sacrificed  for  this 
kind  of  efficiency.  "The  efficiency  of  the  Ger- 
man machine,  brought  into  light  through  the 
present  war,  has  been  accomplished  only 
through  the  autocracy  of  the  state,  as  autoc- 
racy runs  hand  in  hand  with  purely  technical 
efficiency.  The  price  that  must  be  paid  for 
democracy  is  a  certain  amount  of  technical 
inefficiency  for  the  benefit  of  man,  as  man,  and 
not  as  a  machine.  The  price  is  not  too  high, 
because  democracy  develops  the  independence, 
the  character  and  the  expansion  of  the  indi- 

[191] 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

viclual  life."  Not  for  a  moment  would  we 
exchange  the  liberty,  initiation,  character  and 
enterprise  of  American  democracy  for  the 
servile  efficiency  of  German  autocracy. 

This  system  accounts  also  for  the  boasted 
unity  of  the  common  people  in  Germany  in 
support  of  this  iniquitous  war;  for  the  unity 
of  the  universities  in  defence  of  it;  for  the 
unity  of  the  25,000  German  soldiers  killed  and 
wounded  at  Liege,  in  believing  that  they  were 
fighting  Frenchmen  on  their  way  to  Germany, 
although  there  was  not  a  French  soldier  in 
Belgium  at  the  time.  It  accounts  also  for  the 
unity  of  the  children  in  the  German  schools 
in  believing  the  great  lies  that  are  taught  them ; 
for  example,  that  war  is  divine;  that  might 
makes  right;  that  militarism  is  the  corner 
stone  of  the  state;  that  other  nations  are  bent 
on  the  destruction  of  Germany;  that  the  Kai- 
ser is  the  divine  head  of  all  nations;  that  hatred 
is  virtue;  that  the  war  is  a  defensive  war,  and 
that  Germany  has  a  right  to  force  her  culture 
on  the  world  by  the  bayonet. 

For  more  than  a  generation  the  children  have 
had  these  lies  drilled  into  them  in  the  schools 
and  have  grown  up  with  them.  Worse  than 
all,  the  paganism  of  the  universities,  in  the 
rejection  of  the  Christian  God,  the  Bible,  the 
Christ,  and  personal  religion,  has  been  taught 
in  the  schools  and  resulted  in  the  most  irre- 
ligious and  godless  nation  in  Christendom. 

Dr.  W.  H.  Griffith  Thomas  gives  us  a  sample 

[192] 


German  Culture 

of  the  teachings  in  all  the  schools  throughout 
Germany.  The  teacher  said  to  his  pupils, 
"There  are  also  some  people  who  think  that 
every  thing  good  comes  from  above;  that  is 
not  true.  .  .  .  You  must  not  believe  that  Jesus 
really  stilled  the  storm  on  the  sea.  He  never 
did  that."  A  clergyman  present  highly  com- 
mended the  teacher,  and  of  twenty  other  teach- 
ers present  only  one  stood  up  for  Christ.  We 
could  multiply  examples  of  like  teaching,  but 
ex  uno  disce  omnes. 

There  is  no  test  of  the  true  educational  and 
ethical  culture  of  a  people  at  the  present  time 
more  significant  than  its  missionary  work.  A 
letter  from  the  secretary  of  the  oldest  mission- 
ary society  in  this  country,  after  speaking 
highly  of  German  missions  in  India  and  the 
numerous  missions  of  German  Lutheranism, 
makes  this  significant  statement: — "The  Ger- 
mans use  only  about  two  million  dollars  a  year, 
that  is,  all  of  the  German  Missionary  Societies 
together  in  the  prosecution  of  their  work  all 
over  the  world,  while  Great  Britain  uses  more 
than  ten  million  dollars  a  year  and  the  United 
States  twelve  million  more." 

While  missionary  activity  is  primarily  re- 
ligious, its  schools,  colleges  and  hospitals,  as 
well  as  its  churches,  are  doing  a  highly  educa- 
tional work.  We  use  the  word  education  in 
this  chapter  in  its  broadest  sense,  including 
all  cultural  and  intellectual  activities. 

In  one  respect  "independent  personality  in 

[193] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

education"  may  be  conceded  to  Germany.  We 
refer  to  excursions  in  the  realms  of  philosophy. 
There  is  much  useless  learning  in  all  countries 
but  Germany  leads  in  this  respect.  Mr. 
Charles  W.  Super  calls  attention  in  the  Bibli- 
otheca  Sacra  to  two  recent  Greek  histories  by 
Busolt  and  Bcloch,  written,  he  says,  with  char- 
acteristic German  thoroughness.  One  of  them 
extending  only  to  the  time  of  Alexander  fills 
about  twenty-five  hundred  pages;  the  other 
covers  more  ground  and  is  more  readable,  but 
there  is  little  of  value  in  them.  Of  the  same 
character,  he  says,  is  Macon's  Heroditus. 
1  'After  reading  all  the  author  has  to  say,  we 
find  that  it  is  almost  exclusively  subjective 
and  of  no  real  value."  Germany  abounds  in 
publications  of  this  character,  which  add  noth- 
ing to  the  sum  of  human  knowledge. 

Philosophy  is  no  less  important  than  science 
to  the  progress  and  happiness  of  the  race.  Sci- 
ence deals  with  concrete,  proximate  facts; 
philosophy  with  abstract,  ultimate  facts.  As 
with  science  so  in  philosophy,  the  moment  one 
departs  from  facts  ascertained  by  exact  ob- 
servation and  correct  reasoning,  that  moment 
he  embarks  upon  a  sea  of  speculation  and 
without  rudder,  anchor  or  compass,  is  driven 
hither  and  thither  by  every  wind  that  blows. 
Metaphysics,  said  J.  S.  Mill,  is  a  fertile  field 
of  delusion  propagated  by  language. 

In  no  department  of  education  is  there  such 
an  unquenchable  thirst  as  in  matters  of  reli- 

[194] 


German  Culture 

gion.  Anything  or  anybody  that  claims  to 
possess  a  key  to  unlock  its  mysteries,  or  an 
idea  to  solve  its  problems,  can  command  the 
attention  of  the  world.  Germany,  the  land  of 
Luther  and  Melancthon,  was  supposed  to  be 
the  promised  land  flowing  with  the  milk  and 
honey  of  religious  truth.  Thither  thousands 
of  American  theological  students  have  gone  to 
complete  their  equipment  for  the  Gospel  min- 
istry. In  some  respects  they  may  have  been 
benefitted.  In  many  respects  they  have  been 
injured.  In  no  respect  have  they  been  endued 
with  more  power  in  prayer,  more  humility, 
spirituality  or  converting  grace,  things  with- 
out which  a  church  is  only  an  sesthetical,  intel- 
lectual and  pharisaical  club. 

The  "independent  personality"  of  which 
Germany  boasts  has  indeed  characterized  the 
speculations  of  her  theologians.  Nowhere  in 
Christendom  has  independence  of  all  law,  au- 
thority and  truth  been  so  destructive  of  the 
Bible.  Nowhere  has  the  repudiation  of  the 
supernatural  and  divine  been  so  thorough. 
Nowhere  has  Christ  been  so  thoroughly  re- 
jected. Nowhere  have  love,  humility,  prayer, 
forgiveness  and  all  the  Christian  graces  been 
so  discredited  and  crushed  by  "independent 
personality"  and  "scientific  thoroughness." 

No  nation  has  been  so  fertilized  and  seeded 
down  with  arrogance,  infidelity,  immorality, 
hatred  and  militarism  as  Germany;  and  hav- 
ing thus  sown  the  wind,  she  is  bound  to  reap 

[195] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

a  whirlwind  of  suffering,  lamentation  and  woe. 
We  are  told  that  Americans  do  not  understand 
Germany  because  they  ''cannot  think  like  Ger- 
many." The  late  Charles  Francis  Adams,  after 
reading  Nietzsche  and  other  German  writers, 
says,  "I  can  only  say  that  if  what  I  find  in 
these  sources  is  the  capacity  to  think  German- 
ically,  I  would  rather  cease  thinking  at  all.  It 
is  the  absolute  negation  of  everything  which 
has  in  the  past  tended  to  elevate  mankind, 
and  the  installation  in  place  thereof  of  a  sys- 
tem of  thorough  dishonesty,  emphasized  by 
brutal  stupidity.  There  is  a  low  cunning  about 
it  too,  which  is  to  me  in  the  last  degree 
repulsive. ' ' 

The  people  of  other  nations  are  less  annoyed 
at  the  philosophical  vagaries  of  the  Germans 
than  at  their  assumption  of  superiority.  Sev- 
eral years  ago  Mr.  Herman  Bidder,  an  able 
German  editor  in  the  United  States,  wrote  as 
follows:  "If  Germany  to-day  in  general  is 
unbeloved  and  is  able  so  easily  to  become  sus- 
pected, the  first  and  principal  reason  for  this 
is  the  provocative  activity  of  the  pan-Germans, 
their  vainglory  and  their  mania  for  treating 
other  powers  with  mortifying  insolence. ' ' 

This  German  trait  is  not  a  recent  or  sudden 
development.  It  has  been  going  on  for  many 
years.  The  Kaiser  is  especially  responsible 
for  it. 

His  exaltation  of  himself  could  not  be  real- 
ized  without   the   exaltation   of   his   subjects. 

[196] 


German  Culture 

Constantly  falling  from  his  lips  are  the  phrases, 
"My  unrivaled  Grandfather";  "My  glorious 
house  of  Hohenzollern";  "The  Spirit  of  God 
has  descended  upon  me."  The  royal  members 
of  his  family  are  exalted  far  above  all  other 
mortals.  He  has  assured  the  people  that  they 
are  superior  in  kultur,  bravery  and  power,  to 
all  other  people  and  that  God  has  decreed  that 
Germany  should  force  her  kultur,  at  the  point 
of  the  bayonet,  upon  all  other  nations.  "The 
foreigner/'  he  says,  "has  learned  the  conse- 
quences of  offending  the  German  Emperor  and 
his  soldiers." 

This  balderdash  has  had  an  immense  effect 
upon  the  people.  "We  know  how  easy  it  is  to 
spoil  a  child  by  telling  him  he  is  superior  to 
other  children  and  even  to  his  parents  and  that 
others  should  submit  to  his  will.  The  child 
is  inflated  with  self-importance  and  insolence. 
Precisely  similar  has  been  the  effect  of  the 
Kaiser's  fulsome  praise  of  the  people.  They 
have  taken  him  seriously  until  the  average 
German  is  a  bundle  of  conceit  and  arrogance. 
An  American  and  German  at  the  beginning  of 
the  war  chanced  to  be  passing  the  Capitol  build- 
ings in  Washington.  The  German  innocently 
remarked  that  some  day  the  German  Emperor 
would  own  these  buildings  and  control  them. 

The  same  assumption  of  superiority  has  man- 
ifested itself  in  German  universities.  Mr. 
Charles  W.  Super  quotes  Professor  Raster  as 
saying,  respecting  students  from  other  prov- 

[197] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

inces  and  foreign  lands,  "We  take  the  donkey's 
money  and  send  him  home."  In  his  colossal 
conceit  he  could  not  realize  that  the  pabulum 
he  dispensed  was  more  suitable  for  a  donkey's 
consumption  than  for  high  minded  young  men 
in  pursuit  of  knowledge.  The  "money,"  how- 
ever, has  had  a  diplomatic  effect  upon  the  pro- 
fessor in  his  concealing  his  insolence. 

One  thing  has  already  resulted  from  this 
war,  namely,  the  glamour  that  has  heretofore 
enveloped  German  universities  is  dissolved. 
The  disillusionment  has  come.  When  at  the 
beginning  of  the  war  German  professors  came 
out  boldly  as  the  ardent  champions  of  mili- 
tarism, war  for  conquest  and  the  spread  of  Ger- 
man kultur,  they  challenged  the  world  to 
examine  the  reserve  of  true  scholarship  behind 
the  university  currency  in  general  circulation, 
and  people  found  the  latter  so  inflated  that  its 
slump  in  value  is  universal  and  its  redemption 
doubtful. 

The  ideals  of  the  universities,  their  philoso- 
phies, researches,  kultur  and  morals,  their 
teachings,  spirit  and  purpose,  however  dis- 
guised, had  all  fostered  the  wicked  and  detest- 
able purpose  of  aggressive  war. 

This  assumption  of  superiority  easily  grows 
out  of  the  spirit  of  militarism  and  helps  to 
account  for  the  hatred  of  Germans  toward  their 
enemies.  But  how  shall  we  explain  this  hatred 
on  the  part  of  learned  men,  professors  with 
chastened   experience   and  disciplined  minds? 

[198] 


German  Culture 

Hatred  of  one 's  fellow  men  is  one  of  the  basest 
passions.  What  could  lead  an  eminent  pro- 
fessor of  Heidelberg  to  declare  that  German 
culture  would  not  be  satisfied  until  it  had  de- 
stroyed the  tombs  of  Shakespeare  and  Newton 
as  a  punishment  upon  perfidious  London?  In- 
credible as  it  may  appear,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  these  professors,  were  it  possible,  would 
march  in  a  body  to  Stratford-on-Avon  and 
burn  the  home  of  Shakespeare,  dig  up  his  bones 
and  throw  them  into  the  Avon,  and  raze  to  the 
ground  the  church  in  which  he  worshipped. 

This  is  Germany  and  this  is  German  kultur 
in  German  universities  in  the  twentieth 
century ! 

Science  and  philosophy  may  be  a  source  of 
weakness  as  well  as  power.  The  defeat  of  Ger- 
many will  be  the  defeat  of  her  universities.  It 
will  be  a  signal  defeat  of  the  maxim,  knowledge 
is  power.  It  will  show  once  again  that  knowl- 
edge without  wisdom  is  in  the  long  run  weak- 
ness and  destruction. 

"Knowledge  is  proud  that  it  learned  so  much. 
Wisdom  is  humble  that  it  knows  no  more." 

There  is  the  very  highest  authority  for  the 
doctrine  that  the  beginning  of  wisdom  is  not 
the  university  but  the  fear  of  God  who,  how- 
ever, has  been  for  a  generation  virtually  ban- 
ished from  German  universities. 

It  would  seem  to  be  a  solecism  to  speak  of 
the  ignorance  of  learned  men;   this  war,  how- 

[199] 


"Made  in  Germany* 

ever,  lias  emphasized  the  fact.  This  is  an  age 
of  specialization  in  knowledge.  Specialization 
has  serious  disadvantages.  It  dwarfs  the  mind 
by  sharpening  some  faculties  at  the  expense  of 
others.  "It  is  a  matter  for  profound  regret," 
writes  Mr.  Super,  "that  the  old-time  scholar- 
ship has  become  almost  a  thing  of  the  past," 
and  he  quotes  a  pupil  of  the  late  Professor 
Shaler  as  saying,  "I  do  not  believe  there  is 
an  American  now  living  under  sixty  years  of 
age  whose  knowledge  is  as  extensive  and  accu- 
rate as  his  was." 

While  the  saying  that  we  should  know  every- 
thing about  something  and  something  about 
everything  may  not  be  taken  literally,  scholars 
are  certainly  bound  to  know  the  great  outstand- 
ing facts  connected  with  public  events  of  su- 
preme importance. 

Well-educated  Germans  believe  that  three 
years  ago  the  increase  of  their  army  was 
forced  by  an  increase  of  the  French  army, 
whereas  it  is  a  plain  historical  fact  that  the 
exact  opposite  is  the  truth,  viz. :  Germany  first 
enlarged  her  army  by  more  than  half  a  million 
soldiers,  and  France,  to  meet  the  danger,  then 
increased  her  army. 

Ninety-three  of  the  best  educated  men  in 
Germany  address  a  letter  to  all  nations  in 
which  they  say,  "It  is  not  true  that  Germany 
.  .  .  caused  the  war  .  .  .  Germany  did  her  ut- 
most to  prevent  it."  No  historical  fact  is  more 
solidly    established    than   that    this    war   was 

[200] 


German  Culture 

planned  in  Germany,  prepared  in  Germany  and 
"Made  in  Germany."  If  these  gentlemen  are 
sincere  in  their  statements  they  are  profoundly 
ignorant  of  the  facts.  They  say  again,  "It  is 
not  true  that  we  trespassed  in  neutral  Bel- 
gium," and  again,  "It  is  not  true  that  the  life 
and  property  of  a  single  Belgium  citizen  was 
injured  by  our  soldiers  without  the  bitterest 
self-defence  having  made  it  necessary,"  and 
again,  "It  is  not  true  that  our  warfare  pays 
no  respect  to  international  laws,"  and  this  in 
the  face  of  their  submarine  piracy!  We  could 
fill  pages  with  similar  statements  flatly  denying 
facts  patent,  notorious  and  absolutely  impossi- 
ble of  contradiction.  How  then  shall  we  ac- 
count for  this?  The  only  charitable  answer  is 
the  ignorance  of  these  learned  men. 

If  the  mind  or  eye  is  fixed  long  and  intently 
on  one  little  object,  it  became  more  oblivious 
of  larger  objects.  Such  narrowness  of  thought 
and  vision  may  help  to  explain  the  ignorance 
of  German  professors  respecting  matters  of 
international  importance.  Dr.  Hans  Delbruck, 
successor  of  Treitsche,  once  said  that  Germany 
must  expand  at  the  expense  of  England,  France 
and  Eussia,  by  making  war  upon  them.  Over 
and  over  this  sentiment  is  reiterated  by  Ger- 
man professors.  Students  of  history  are  puz- 
zled at  the  profound  ignorance  thus  displayed 
in  respect  to  the  acquisition  of  territory. 

These  professors  do  not  understand  the 
methods  by  which  these  nations  have  won  the 

[201] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

possessions  for  which  they  are  so  bitterly  en- 
vied in  Germany.  It  was  not  by  "everlast- 
ingly talking  about  it,  by  villifying  their  rivals, 
by  continually  brandishing  the  sword  and  ele- 
vating into  a  system  the  right  of  the  mailed  fist. 
Their  empires  have  grown  through  the  pursuit 
of  immediate  and  limited  aims.  They  have 
sought  here  an  outlet  to  the  sea,  there  a  trading 
station,  or  the  reduction  to  peace  of  marauding 
neighbors  on  the  frontiers.  German  profes- 
sional intelligence  has  taken  so  false  a  measure 
of  men  and  things  as  to  adopt  the  very  course 
most  certain  to  defeat  its  aims." 

It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  learned  Ger- 
man professors  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic 
have  put  forth  arguments  so  unreasonable, 
illogical  and  puerile,  as  to  invite  universal 
derision.  For  example,  here  is  an  argument  to 
show  that  Germany  is  fighting  a  defensive  war : 
"As  Bismarck  said  the  German  army,  since  it 
is  an  army  of  the  folk  itself,  is  not  a  weapon 
for  frivolous  aggression.  Since  the  German 
army,  when  it  is  summoned  to  war,  represents 
the  whole  German  people,  and  since  the  whole 
German  people  is  peaceably  disposed,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  army  can  only  be  a  defensive 
organization. "  Of  course  this  reasoning  would 
prove  that  every  nation  beginning  a  war  is  on 
the  defensive.  It  requires  no  knowledge  of 
logic  to  detect  the  fallacy  of  such  reasoning. 
It  is  really  an  affront  to  common  sense.  There 
is  no  fool  like  an  educated  fool.    Nothing  has 

[202] 


German  Culture 

done  more  harm  to  the  German  cause  than 
this  twisting  of  truth,  perversion  of  facts 
and  sophistical,  silly  arguments  of  German 
professors. 

The  more  intelligent  among  the  common  peo- 
ple are  pretty  much  in  the  same  category,  with 
this  difference,  they  make  mere  assertions  with- 
out explanation  or  the  slightest  evidence  in 
support  of  them.  With  them  assertion  is  con- 
clusive. Americans  receive  letters  from  all 
parts  of  Germany  justifying  her  course.  They 
are  all  alike,  bear  the  same  trade  mark  and  the 
same  stamp  and  may  all  be  entitled,  "What 
all  Germans  believe."  Under  this  caption  the 
Springfield  Republican  (Massachusetts)  dis- 
cusses this  remarkable  phenomenon  of  uni- 
formity, and  accurately  analyzes  its  psychol- 
ogy. It  says,  "The  typical  letter  runs  some- 
thing as  follows: — (1)  America  has  read  only 
lies;  (2)  This  is  a  defensive  war;  (3)  All 
Germany  is  united  in  supporting  the  Kaiser; 
(4)  Austria  had  to  punish  Servia;  (5)  Rus- 
sia began  the  war;  (6)  England  instigated  it; 
(7)  Every  German  knows  that  the  other  na- 
tions had  long  been  plotting  to  destroy  Ger- 
many and  German  kultur;  (8)  Belgium  was 
their  secret  ally;  (9)  Atrocities  have  been  per- 
petrated on  Germans  whose  conduct  has  been 
exemplary;  (10)  German  victories  have  been 
kept  from  the  world!  What  these  letters  con- 
spicuously lack  is  facts;  in  place  of  them  we 
have  dogmatic  assertions." 

[203] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

How  is  this  uniformity  of  statement  to  be 
accounted  for?  Their  authors,  of  course,  have 
no  first  hand  knowledge  in  these  matters.  How, 
for  example,  could  they  know  that  other  na- 
tions were  plotting  to  destroy  Germany,  espe- 
cially when  no  such  plotting  was  ever  thought 
of?  "The  very  uniformity  and  confidence  of 
the  tone,"  says  the  Bepublican,  "with  which 
the  assertion  is  made  indicates  that  it  has  been 
taught  dogmatically,  that  the  Germans  have 
accepted  it  obediently  as  a  first  principle,  like 
the  superiority  of  German  culture  to  all  other 
culture. ' ' 

Let  us  suppose  that  these  statements  were 
evolved  by  the  Kaiser  and  his  general  staff, 
hung  upon  the  walls  of  the  war  office,  printed 
upon  decorated  cards,  sent  to  all  local  officials 
of  the  realm  for  general  distribution,  together 
with  the  instructions  that  the  people  assemble 
daily  and  repeat  in  concert  these  ten  great, 
crucial  declarations  respecting  the  war,  and 
any  one  who  shall  venture  to  demand  facts  for 
the  support  of  any  one  of  them  shall  be  deemed 
guilty  of  unpatriotic  conduct. 

The  results  reached  by  the  educational  ma- 
chine in  Germany  are  the  same  as  if  the  suppo- 
sition were  true.  In  no  other  country  could 
such  profound  ignorance  be  so  scientifically 
and  thoroughly  imposed  upon  the  people.  In 
no  other  country  could  such  blind,  absolute 
obedience  as  to  what  all  the  people  should 
believe  and  speak  be  secured.     In  no  other 

[204] 


German  Culture 

country  in  the  world  could  the  rulers  propa- 
gate such  glaring  falsehoods  by  means  of  let- 
ters from  the  people  written  to  foreigners  all 
making  the  same  assertions,  in  the  same  lan- 
guage and  with  the  same  assurance  of  their 
truth.  "Empty  of  facts  as  these  naive  and 
impassioned  letters  are,"  says  the  Eepublican, 
1 '  they  in  themselves,  in  their  pathetic  uniform- 
ity and  their  unquestioning  patriotism,  are  a 
fact  and  an  impressive  fact.  .  .  .  What  every 
German  knows,  turns  out  to  be  simply  that  he 
is  ready  to  march  when  the  word  comes  from 
above. ' ' 

We  are  assured  that  the  Germans  are  just 
as  sincere  and  faithful  to  their  convictions  as 
the  Allies.  When  evil  doers  are  sincere  and 
faithful  in  the  perpetration  of  crime,  the  evil 
is  intensified.  Never  were  men  more  sincere 
or  true  to  their  convictions  than  when  the  Ger- 
mans, in  violation  of  solemn  treaties,  invaded 
Belgium  and  "hacked  their  way  through"  the 
burning  buildings  and  dead  bodies  of  innocent 
men,  women  and  children. 

With  what  sincerity  and  fidelity  to  convic- 
tions do  German  submarines  torpedo  peaceable 
merchant  ships,  without  notice  sending  them 
to  the  bottom  with  their  unoffending  passen- 
gers !  When  Professor  Hugo  Munsterberg  pub- 
lishes to  the  world  that,  "To  say  that  nations 
ought  to  respect  the  possessions  of  other  na- 
tions is  the  grossest  immorality,"  we  credit 
him  with  sincerity  and  fidelity  to  his  convic- 

[205] 


"Made  in  Germany'* 

tions.  That  this  professor,  as  a  representative 
German,  can  commit  piracy,  theft,  massacre, 
perfidy  and  falsehood  with  sincerity  and  fidel- 
ity to  conviction  we  must  concede.  We  stand, 
however,  in  mortal  terror  of  the  German  brand 
of  sincerity  and  fidelity  to  conviction.  Until 
these  qualities  are  civilized  we  want  nothing 
to  do  with  them. 

Among  the  many  reasons  assigned  by  Ger- 
man apologists  for  the  war  are  (1)  Conquest; 
(2)  Spread  of  German  culture;  (3)  A  Place 
in  the  Sun;  (4)  Jealousy  toward  Germany; 
(5)  The  Slav  Menace;  (6)  Control  of  the 
Balkans;  (7)  Commercial  Supremacy;  (8) 
Military  Efficiency;  (9)  Spontaneous  Com- 
bustion;   (10)  War  of  Protoplasms. 

The  Sarjevo  assassination  is  no  longer  re- 
garded as  the  cause  or  hardly  the  occasion  for 
the  war.  Austria's  ultimatum  to  Servia  was 
only  a  pretext  for  beginning  a  war  fully  deter- 
mined upon  and  prepared  for. 

There  is  one  and  only  one  efficient  and  suf- 
ficient cause  of  this  war.  It  is  as  old  as  war 
itself.  It  has  never  failed  to  produce  war  and 
has  caused  nearly  all  the  wars  of  history. 
The  other  alleged  causes  for  this  war  are  cal- 
culated to  throw  dust  in  the  eyes  of  the  peo- 
ple and  divert  public  attention  from  the  real 
cause. 

Let  us  first  eliminate  these  fictitious  causes, 
reversing  the  order  of  statement  and  begin- 
ning with  the  last. 

[206] 


German  Culture 

(10)  The  war  of  Protoplasms.  Dr.  Robert 
Tuttle  Morris  in  an  address  on  "Warfare  as 
Natural  History,"  described  man  as  a  group 
of  protoplasmic  cells  that  were  in  constant 
warfare.  The  war  was  between  two  strong 
types  of  varietal  hybrids,  each  trying  to  get 
control  of  the  other.  In  this  struggle,  he  says, 
a  "strong,  haughty,  nouveau-riche  protoplasm 
is  in  conflict  with  an  equally  strong,  old  pa- 
trician protoplasm."  Dr.  Morris,  says  the 
New  York  Times,  diagnosed  the  European 
conflict  as  a  "free-for-all  show-down  between 
Mr.  Darwin  of  England  and  Mr.  Treitschke 
of  Germany."  It  is  thus  a  battle  of  proto- 
plasms. 

Darwin,  however,  had  another  theory  beside 
that  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest ;  this  was  the 
"mutual  dependence  of  protoplasms."  This 
means  a  recognition  by  the  fighting  protoplas- 
mic cells  of  each  other's  rights,  and  an 
arrangement  brought  about  by  the  Hague  con- 
gress, whereby  the  warring  protoplasms  will 
submit  to  an  "international  mind."  Dr.  Mor- 
ris believes  this  theory  will  prevail.  The  Ger- 
man Treitschke  flouts  this  idea,  declares  war 
to  be  a  biological  necessity  and  demands  that 
German  protoplasm  should  ruthlessly  crush 
all  other  national  protoplasms. 

If  as  Dr.  Morris  asserts,  he  as  a  man  is  a 
group  of  fighting  protoplasmic  cells,  we  will  let 
some  other  group  tackle  him  and  his  theory. 
Meanwhile  we  shall  continue  to  regard  this  war 

[207] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

as  caused  by  and  carried  on  by  men  who  are 
conscious,  intelligent  and  responsible  beings. 

(9)  "Spontaneous  Combustion"  is  said  to 
have  caused  the  war.  This  is  produced  by 
heat  caused  bv  chemical  action  within  the  sub- 
stance  itself.  No  outside  agency  is  responsi- 
ble. Nobody  is  to  blame.  In  the  moral  world 
it  is  an  effect  without  a  cause  and  covers  a 
multitude  of  sins.  This  view  in  various  forms 
is  a  favorite  one  with  those  who  are  advocating 
the  German  cause  under  the  guise  of  neutrality. 

(8)  "Military  Efficiency"  as  the  cause  of  the 
war  is  considered  in  a  former  chapter.  It  is 
the  doctrine  put  forward  by  Dr.  Jordan,  and, 
like  "Spontaneous  combustion,"  relieves  all 
nations  and  all  individuals  from  any  responsi- 
bility for  beginning  the  war.  Since  it  is  repu- 
diated by  all  the  belligerent  nations  we  may 
dismiss  it  at  once. 

(7)  "Commercial  Supremacy"  is  often  de- 
clared to  be  the  cause  of  the  war.  None  will 
deny  that  commercial  interests  play  an  impor- 
tant part  in  modern  wars.  In  no  respect  is 
a  nation  so  sensitive  as  in  matters  of  trade 
and  commerce. 

There  are  two  systems  or  methods  in  carry- 
ing on  industry  and  commerce,  viz. :  the  com- 
petitive and  the  co-operative,  the  individualis- 
tic and  the  socialistic.  The  industrial  strife  in 
the  United  States  and  in  Europe  is  due  to  com- 
petition. At  this  writing  150,000  employees 
are  fighting  their  employers  in  a  strike  and 

[208] 


German  Culture 

lockout,  and  several  have  already  been  killed. 
Competition  in  its  natural  evolution  has  come 
to  mean  war.  Cut-throat  competition  is  not  a 
misnomer.  Co-operation,  on  the  other  hand, 
makes  for  peace. 

There  is  no  competitive  strike,  no  competi- 
tive commercial  struggle  going  on  anywhere  in 
the  world  to-day  that  could  not  he  settled  in  an 
hour  by  co-operation.  Only  as  co-operation,  in 
some  form,  is  substituted  for  competition  are 
industrial  peace  and  good  will  within  any  sin- 
gle nation,  possible.  Can  the  same  be  said  of 
international  relations?  We  do  not  think  so. 
The  nations  as  units  are  so  large,  their  inter- 
ests so  diverse,  they  are  so  different  in  lan- 
guage, habits,  civilization,  ideals  and  aspira- 
tions, that  co-operation  in  industry  and  com- 
merce to  any  extent  is  impossible.  It  follows 
that  the  nations  will  for  a  long  time  be  on  a 
competitive  basis. 

In  the  past  the  extension  of  trade  and  com- 
merce may  have  been  deemed  a  sufficient  cause 
for  war.  It  is  so  no  longer.  The  moral  and 
social  evolution  of  the  race  has  outlawed  it. 
The  attempt  of  Germany  to  revive  this  species 
of  brigandage  even  by  way  of  pretext  in  the 
present  war  is  resented  by  all  nations.  Bern- 
hardi  says,  in  "Germany  and  the  Next  War," 
"Our  political  power  gained  by  war  rendered 
possible  the  vast  progress  of  our  trade  and 
commerce ' ' :  and  he  not  only  justifies  but  com- 
mends war  for  these  objects. 

[209] 


"Made  in  Germany 

There  is  more  error  than  truth  in  this  state- 
ment. German  trade  has  not  developed  by  fol- 
lowing the  German  flag,  but  by  following  up 
the  progress  and  liberal  policies  of  other  coun- 
tries. This  is  the  chief  reason  for  German 
trade  in  India,  South  America  and  the  United 
States.  Canada  has  more  trade  with  Germany 
than  with  England. 

Germany  had  all  the  foreign  trade  she  could 
manage.  It  exceeded  $4,500,000,000  annually, 
surpassing  that  of  any  other  country.  She  is 
not  waging  a  commercial  war,  since  no  nation 
placed  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  her  unlimi- 
ted expansion. 

Mr.  Clarence  W.  Barron  in  his  interesting 
volume,  "The  Audacious  War,"  while  laying 
great  emphasis  upon  the  commercial  factor  in 
the  war,  says,  Germany  had  triumphed  over  all 
other  nations  in  commerce,  "her  enterprise, 
her  industry  and  her  merchants  have  spread 
themselves  over  the  surface  of  the  earth  to  a 
degree  little  realized." 

Germany,  therefore,  had  not  the  slightest 
need  of  a  commercial  war  since  she  had  noth- 
ing to  gain  by  it.  All  doors  were  freely  open 
to  her.  Her  goods  went  everywhere.  Eng- 
land and  most  of  her  colonies  let  them  come 
in  free,  while  Germany  kept  English  goods  out 
by  a  twenty  per  cent,  tariff. 

It  is  true  that  the  home  trade  of  any  country, 
especially  in  an  autocratic  government  will  be 
increased  by  enlarging  the  national  boundaries, 

[210] 


German  Culture 

but  the  struggle  is  more  and  more  for  foreign 
markets.  Admitting  that  the  development  of 
trade  may  have  been  a  factor  in  Germany's 
action  in  bringing  on  the  war,  it  was  not  the 
efficient  cause. 

(6)  The  control  of  the  Balkans  as  a  cause 
of  the  war  is  included  in  the  first  alleged  cause. 

(5)  The  Slav  Menace,  another  alleged  cause 
of  the  war,  we  have  seen,  on  page  105,  to  be 
a  mere  pretence  originating  in  the  universities 
and  designed  solely  to  keep  up  to  a  white  heat 
the  war  spirit  of  the  people. 

(4)  Envy  toward  Germany.  The  Kaiser 
declared  that,  "Envious  people  everywhere  are 
compelling  us  to  our  just  defence." 

If  German  prosperity  has  been  so  marvel- 
lous in  spite  of  "envious  people,"  why  not  let 
well  enough  alone?  What  "defence"  is  needed? 
Just  where  and  when  did  the  army  of  "envi- 
ous people"  fall  upon  Germany?  The  truth 
is  there  was  no  attack  or  threatened  attack. 
The  only  envy  that  existed  was  the  envy  of 
Germany  against  England  and  other  countries. 

The  action  of  Germany  in  beginning  the  war 
was  in  no  sense  a  "defence"  of  any  kind,  but 
an  open,  aggressive  assault  upon  other  nations. 
The  Kaiser  never  appeared  at  a  worse  advan- 
tage than  in  giving  "envious  people"  as  the 
cause  of  war.  No  one  envied  Germany.  Even 
if  envy  existed  it  furnished  not  the  slightest 
cause  for  war  and  the  Kaiser  knows  it.  False- 
hood never  assumed  a  thinner  or  more  ridic- 

[211] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

ulous  mask  than  in  this  utterance  of  the  Kaiser. 

(3)  "A  Place  in  the  Sun  "  is  repeatedly  de- 
clared to  be  Germany's  object  in  the  war.  It 
means  that  Germany  has  no  longer  room  for 
her  population  and  must,  therefore,  seize  the 
territory  of  other  nations. 

Since  1816  her  population  has  increased  from 
25,000,000  to  65,000,000,  and  it  is  claimed  that 
the  people  are  cramped  and  in  distress  and  the 
surplus  population  cannot  exist  without  an  ex- 
tension of  territory.  This  is  important  if  true. 
It  is  not  true.  German  statistics  show  its  fal- 
sity. Her  agricultural  population  is  no  larger 
to-day  than  it  was  a  hundred  years  ago.  Her 
wonderful  development  in  manufacturing  has 
drawn  the  people  into  manufacturing  centers. 
By  intensive  farming  the  products  of  the  soil 
have  been  many  times  multiplied,  so  that  the 
staple  products,  like  rye,  wheat  and  potatoes, 
have  trebled.  Her  foreign  trade  has  so  enor- 
mously increased  that  there  is  a  constantly 
increasing  demand  for  laborers.  Note  the  fall- 
ing off  in  emigration.  Twenty  years  ago,  125,- 
000  Germans  emigrated  yearly  to  this  country. 
In  1912  we  received  only  12,500.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  vast  increase  in  population,  the  con- 
sumption in  cereals  alone  for  each  person  has 
increased  150  per  cent. 

Mr.  Arthur  von  Gwinner,  the  leading  banker 
in  Germany,  wrote  an  article  under  the  title  of 
"English  and  German  Economics"  in  1912,  in 
which  occurs  the  following:    "Germany,  as  a 

[212] 


German  Culture 

matter  of  fact,  has  not  sufficient  people  for  her 
land.  In  spite  of  her  increasing  population, 
over  750,000  agricultural  laborers  have  to  be 
brought  yearly  from  outside  our  frontiers  to 
till  the  land  and  reap  the  harvest.  It  is,  there- 
fore, as  much  out  of  the  question  to  talk  of 
Germany's  over-population  as  of  her  necessity 
for  exporting  men,  as  long  as  the  world's  mar- 
kets remain  open  to  her  for  exporting  goods, 
in  order  to  pay  for  the  indispensable  imports 
of  food  stuffs  by  export  of  German  industrial 
energy."  This  gentleman  is  one  of  the  men 
around  the  Kaiser  and  an  authority.  This 
annual  importation  of  farm  laborers  is  abun- 
dantly confirmed.  Dr.  Franz  Oppenheimer,  a 
Professor  of  Berlin  University,  says:  "Ger- 
many has  eighty  million  acres  of  agriculture 
and  only  seventeen  millions  of  agricultural  pop- 
ulation ;  if  the  land  were  put  to  use,  the  peas- 
ants could  have  all  the  land  they  could  profit- 
ably cultivate,  and  would  be  independent,  com- 
fortable, middle-class  people  and  almost  half 
of  the  whole  agricultural  area  would  still  re- 
main unoccupied."  We  are  taking  our  facts 
and  figures  only  from  the  highest  German 
authority.  It  thus  appears  that  Germany,  in- 
stead of  being  over-peopled,  is  not  half  popu- 
lated nor  is  her  agricultural  land  half  tilled. 
Instead  of  being  crowded  and  suffering  for 
want  of  room,  the  Germans  are  extremely  pros- 
perous, healthy  and  happy.  These  statistics 
show  an  increasingly  high  standard  of  living, 

[213] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

a  decreased  death  rate,  increased  demand  for 
labor,  decrease  of  emigration,  increase  of  for- 
eign trade,  and  a  great  increase  in  wealth,  espe- 
cially in  Prussia,  where,  in  the  sixteen  years 
ending  in  1911,  the  aggregate  income  increased 
from  15,000,000,000  marks  to  27,000,000,000,  a 
gain  of  more  than  eighty  per  cent.  When, 
therefore,  the  Kaiser  says  that  on  account  of 
increase  of  population,  Germany  has  to  wage 
war  for  her  right  to  "A  Place  in  the  Sun,"  he 
is  simply  stating  what  is  not  true. 

(2)  Spread  of  German  Culture.  We  have 
seen  how  culture  in  Germany  is  related  to  war, 
or  rather  how  German  apologists  have  at- 
tempted to  show  that  it  was  the  mission  of 
Germany  to  extend  her  superior  culture  over 
all  other  nations,  and  in  the  fulfillment  of  this 
mission  she  was  making  this  great  sacrifice  of 
blood  and  treasure. 

What  are  Americans  to  do  with  this  propo- 
sition made  in  all  seriousness  by  the  German 
Emperor,  university  professors,  statesmen  and 
other  representatives  of  the  nation1? 

Let  us  say  at  once  that  the  attempt  to  extend 
culture  by  the  bayonet  is  not  a  rational  pro- 
ceeding. No  nation  ever  did  it.  There  is  no 
precedent  for  it.  It  requires  a  spirit  of  altru- 
ism that  Germany  does  not  possess.  The  his- 
tory of  mankind  furnishes  no  example  of  such 
sublime  benevolence.  Germany,  a  great  and 
mighty  nation,  eager  to  shed  the  blood  of  mil- 
lions of  her  sons  and  to  spend  billions  of  treas- 

[214  J 


German  Culture 

ure,  that  she  may  give  to  her  hated  enemies, 
"barbarous  Russia,"  "frivolous  France"  and 
"perfidious  England,"  the  one  distinguishing 
possession  of  her  own  greatness — her  kulturl 
Plow  shall  we  reconcile  this  position  with  Bern- 
hardi's  statement  that  all  brotherly  love  is 
bounded  by  the  state  line?  No,  the  cause  of 
this  war  was  not  the  desire  to  spread  German 
kultur.  Of  all  the  causes  assigned  this  is  the 
most  far-fetched  and  insincere.  It  was  de- 
signed to  give  a  color  of  respectability  to  a 
monstrous  crime. 

(1)  The  lust  for  Conquest  is  the  one  only 
efficient  and  sufficient  cause  of  the  war.  Other 
contributing  causes  such  as  the  control  of  the 
Balkans  are  all  included  in  this  one  purpose. 
Pan-Germanism  alone  explains  the  entire  situ- 
ation. All  diplomatic  negotiations  leading  up 
to  Germany's  declaration  of  war  against  Rus- 
sia, her  huge  armaments,  which  she  has  been 
piling  up  for  a  generation,  thus  forcing  other 
nations  to  follow  her  example  or  perish,  the 
writings  of  leading  Germans  declaring  that 
"war  is  a  good  thing" ;  that  it  is  a  "biological 
necessity" ;  that  it  is  " ordained  of  God" ;  that 
it  is  "the  greatest  factor  in  the  furtherance  of 
culture  as  well  as  power";  that  it  has  "achieved 
greater  things  than  love";  the  toast,  "To  the 
Dag,"  that  the  German  navy  has  been  drinking 
for  years  and  ivhich  means  the  day  of  German 
domination  not  only  of  Europe  but  of  the 
ivorld;    and  pages   of  similar  utterances,  all 

[215] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

shoiv  conclusively  the  one  supreme  purpose  of 
Germany  as  declared  by  her  foremost  repre- 
sentative, viz.,  "World  Power  or  Downfall." 
Bernliardi  admits  our  contention  thus:  "New 
territory  must  be  obtained  at  the  cost  of  its 
possessors — that  is  to  say,  by  conquest.  .  .  . 
It  is  not  the  possessor  but  the  victor  who  then 
has  the  right." 

Conquest  then  is  the  one  solution  of  the  war. 
It  explains  all  the  problems  connected  with  it. 
It  alone  accounts  for  the  German  doctrine  of 
Machtpolitic — the  doctrine  that  might  makes 
right,  which  has  been  a  veritable  Pandora's 
box,  letting  loose  in  Germany  the  above  named 
abominable  principles  unblushingly  avowed  by 
her  philosophers. 

All  the  excuses,  explanations,  prevarications, 
apologies  and  falsehoods  as  to  the  causes  of 
the  war,  are  resolved  into  thin  air  and  disap- 
pear before  the  word  conquest.  The  pretended 
struggle  for  existence,  the  danger  of  a  Rus- 
sian invasion,  the  need  of  expansion,  French 
revenge,  a  defensive  war,  British  envy,  are 
miserable  subterfuges  to  cover  up  Germany's 
wicked  purpose  to  dominate  Europe  and  the 
world. 

Everywhere  men  are  asking  what  this  war 
is  about,  what  does  Germany  want?  The  an- 
swer is,  conquest.  Conquest  also  explains  the 
savagery  inaugurated  by  Germany  in  prose- 
cuting the  war.  Americans  have  been  reluc- 
tant to  admit  that  the  lust  of  conquest  was  the 

[21G] 


German  Culture 

sole  cause  of  the  war.  With  the  new  sense  of 
right  that  now  prevails,  such  a  reversal  to  bar- 
barism in  a  country  so  enlightened  as  Germany 
was  unthinkable. 

What  are  the  motives  behind  a  war  of  con- 
quest? The  answer  is,  the  basest  passions  in 
the  human  breast.  In  the  highest  authority  on 
earth  we  read,  "From  whence  come  wars  and 
fightings  among  you?  Come  they  not  from 
your  lusts  that  war  in  your  members  ? ' '  Here 
ends  the  search  for  the  cause  of  the  war.  Lust 
is  the  psychology  of  conquest;  power-lust, 
land-lust,  spoils-lust,  money-lust,  blood-lust, 
fame-lust,  hatred-lust  and  vengeance-lust. 

It  is  this  vile,  festering,  loathsome  swarm  of 
lusts,  detested  by  all  right  minded  men,  that 
Germany  summons  to  her  aid  in  her  war  of 
conquest.  She  will  not  succeed.  The  stars  in 
their  courses  are  fighting  against  her.  In  all 
that  makes  for  peace,  good  will  and  brother- 
hood, Christendom  has  moved  forward  more  in 
the  last  hundred  years  than  in  all  the  cen- 
turies of  the  Christian  era. 

It  has  pleased  Almighty  God  to  convert 
steam,  electricity  and  machinery  into  a  world 
evangel  girdling  the  earth  with  the  steamboat, 
the  railroad  and  the  telegraph,  which  He  is 
employing  as  the  winged  messengers  of  fra- 
ternity and  love. 

On  the  border  line  between  Chili  and  Argen- 
tina, these  nations  have  erected  a  beautiful 
monument  of  peace.    The  granite  base  is  sur- 

[217] 


"Made  in  Germany" 

mounted  with  a  colossal  statue  of  the  Christ. 
In  his  left  hand  He  holds  a  cross,  while  his 
right  hand  stretches  toward  the  skies,  invok- 
ing the  benediction  of  Heaven  upon  the  world, 
to  whom  with  solemn  ceremony  the  monument 
was  dedicated.  It  bears  this  inscription: — 
"Sooner  shall  these  mountains  crumble  into 
dust,  than  the  Argentines  and  Chileans  break 
the  peace  to  which  they  have  pledged  them- 
selves at  the  feet  of  Christ  the  Redeemer." 

In  this  sign  the  nations  will  conquer  war. 
Let  this  sublime  sentiment  be  enthroned  at  the 
Hague.  On  every  border  land  between  the  na- 
tions let  a  similar  monument  be  erected  in- 
scribed in  letters,  deep  cut  and  ineffaceable, 
with  a  covenant  of  perpetual  peace,  and  then 
the  glad  day  will  have  come,  when  swords  shall 
be  beaten  into  plowshares  and  spears  into 
pruning  hooks  and  the  nations  shall  learn  war 
no  more. 


■    - 

4         Hi 

■ 


, 


(A  a 


[218] 


UNIVERSITY  OP  CALIFORNIA 


LIBRARY 


STAMPED  BELOW 


AJ6    5  1927 


30/n-l,'i5 


YB  21349 


331114 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


